# Wisconsin Dems Walk Out



## Jango (Feb 17, 2011)

No Wis. union vote as Democrats leave state - U.S. news - Life - msnbc.com

For those who haven't heard, our new Governor is trying to pass a bill slashing public employee wages, including teachers. In this bill, he's also trying to eliminate our union's rights to collective bargaining, effectively rendering them useless. So, our Dems went to Illinois today to stop the vote, and we've got 2500 people at our Capital protesting, along with several school districts shutting down due to lack of personnel.
On a more personal level, if this bill were to pass, my favorite club at school would cease to exist. The teacher who runs our science club already invests a fair amount of her own money in it (rule don't allow her to take from our club bank account), but combined with the wage cuts, two young children, and her husband being laid off, she would have to stop running the club, and frankly no other teacher would be able to make it happen like she does.


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 17, 2011)

What is your state's deficit?


----------



## Jango (Feb 17, 2011)

$3.6 billion, with a buget deficit of $137 million this fiscal year.


----------



## ry_z (Feb 18, 2011)

Runaway Wisconsin State Senator Wins Internet

Best state-Senator Facebook status update ever.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Feb 18, 2011)

ry_z said:


> Runaway Wisconsin State Senator Wins Internet
> 
> Best state-Senator Facebook status update ever.


----------



## 13point9 (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 18, 2011)

Our new governor just approve over a Billion dollars in cuts from just about everything. I'm really happy somebody is doing something. If it doesn't work out, then I'll start to protest.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 18, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> Our new governor just approve over a Billion dollars in cuts from just about everything. I'm really happy somebody is doing something. If it doesn't work out, then I'll start to protest.



This. It's simple economics, don't spend more than you're taking in. If cuts need to be made to keep your state afloat, however painful, then they need to be made... end of story.


----------



## Randy (Feb 18, 2011)

orb451 said:


> This. It's simple economics, don't spend more than you're taking in. If cuts need to be made to keep your state afloat, however painful, then they need to be made... end of story.



Easier said than done. Our governor's doing this and every single cut he proposes gets him lambasted in the media. It's just like trying to clean out the house of a clutterbug... they complain there's too much shit around but when you go to bring some of it to the dump, every single thing you pickup is an argument. The problem becomes this fucking perpetual 're-election machine' that runs constantly, it's hard not to fall into doing whatever's "easy" instead of "right". 

Not saying it excuses things, but it's certainly a trouble predicament. Hopefully the new crop of governors willing to slash the budget to even things out get a little more respect than their predecessors.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 18, 2011)

Randy said:


> Easier said than done. Our governor's doing this and every single cut he proposes gets him lambasted in the media. It's just like trying to clean out the house of a clutterbug... they complain there's too much shit around but when you go to bring some of it to the dump, every single thing you pickup is an argument. The problem becomes this fucking perpetual 're-election machine' that runs constantly, it's hard not to fall into doing whatever's "easy" instead of "right".
> 
> Not saying it excuses things, but it's certainly a trouble predicament. Hopefully the new crop of governors willing to slash the budget to even things out get a little more respect than their predecessors.



Yeah pretty much. We had a fun run with the Governator out here in Cali for a while, he's pretty much been skewered (perhaps rightfully so, perhaps not) for causing the budget debacle we're in so now it's up to Jerry Brown to get us out of it. And that means cuts... 

I think it boils down to that old "having your cake and eating it too". Either you want government programs and all the benefits they offer, which is fine, but that funding *has* to come from somewhere. Or, you want minimal spending and with that, none of the benefits/programs that make communities better. When these clowns are allowed to write their own ticket, or blank check, shit gets out of hand with a quickness.


----------



## Randy (Feb 18, 2011)

It's true. I just think people, in general, are a little hypocritical with regard to these things. The majority of people think the money all comes out of social programs or something that doesn't much effect them directly, but then they see snow cleanup cut back, funding for schools cut back, road repair cut back, and industrial development funding cut back. As a result, they're the first people to complain when there's snow on the roads, layoffs or programs removed in the schools, potholes, and empty factory buildings. All of those are things that we could survive without, or at least could afford to have scaled back temporarily, but everybody gets up in arms as soon as it happens.


----------



## AySay (Feb 18, 2011)

I don't think America should cut spending on ANYTHING education related....


----------



## Meshugger (Feb 18, 2011)

I think a good question should be "How did deficit become that high in first place?"


----------



## orb451 (Feb 18, 2011)

Meshugger said:


> I think a good question should be "How did deficit become that high in first place?"



The problem with this is, it's a slippery slope that ends with people just pointing fingers. It's one of the reasons I can't stand the incessant history lessons in every thread on here, as well in life in general. Nothing wrong with knowing *how* things got fucked up, but the focus really ought to stay on FIXING things and moving forward... not living in the past.

Like I said, in California, the previous governor got a lot of blame for our budget woes. From what I've read, it sounds a lot like Democrats went wild spending and expanding government programs. Maybe it's a mix of his inadequacy and their spending... 69 million dollars spent on EBT... IN FUCKING VEGAS. VEGAS. 69 million spent for low-income, welfare recipients to take their California issued EBT cards and then go spend that money in Las Vegas. 

An entire program designed and publicly funded *just* setup a committee that could re-tool the EBT cards. Because there was a social *stigma* attached with using them. So they wanted, and got, a whole new branding campaign just so people could feel all warm and fuzzy about their tax-payer funded EBT/Food-stamp cards. Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

But that's just here in Cali, I've no idea how good or bad other states or state programs are doing. And I don't mean to imply that it's always one way or the other. But there *should* be some form of balance. Between spending, programs and taxes. Bottom line is still, if you want programs, or services like Randy mentioned, the money *has* to come from somewhere...


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 18, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.



This caused a lot of laughter in my office.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 18, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> This caused a lot of laughter in my office.



I'm here to amuse *you* Ed. Like a clown...


----------



## snowblind56 (Feb 18, 2011)

The big thing with this isn't the slashing wages and benefits. The Union is willing to make concessions with that. 

This is all about about Gov. Walker trying to nuke the unions and take away all their bargaining rights and using the budget cuts as a smoke screen. Then there is the fact that he is trying to fast track this through the senate as fast as possible and WILL NOT negotiate or make any amendments to this bill.


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 18, 2011)

I'm sure I'm not the first person who feels Unions shouldn't exist any more.


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 18, 2011)

snowblind56 said:


> Then there is the fact that he is trying to fast track this through the senate as fast as possible and WILL NOT negotiate or make any amendments to this bill.



Not unlike our past Congress.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Feb 18, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I'm sure I'm not the first person who feels Unions shouldn't exist any more.



Unions are necessary for people to fight evil corporate overlords. I think they should be mandatory.


----------



## Randy (Feb 18, 2011)




----------



## McKay (Feb 19, 2011)

Similar story here. Country in the shitter economically so cuts are made. Everyone complains about the cuts, displaying an acute lack of understanding.

Of course, our public sector is actually _larger_ than our private. Oh well.


----------



## Jango (Feb 19, 2011)

Frankly, I don't know what most of the bill says. However, I find it unacceptable that they're taking out collective bargaining. If they want to send the bill through again without the removal of collective bargaining, I'll research it and go from there. But trying to take away the power of unions, especially teacher's unions, is just wrong to me.


----------



## troyguitar (Feb 19, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> Not unlike our past Congress.



What's this referencing? I haven't seen much of anything rushed through congress without getting fucked up so much to please everyone that it ends up being a useless heap of shit that wastes time and (our) money.


----------



## JamesM (Feb 19, 2011)

@Randy:
FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES FOX LIES


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 19, 2011)

troyguitar said:


> What's this referencing? I haven't seen much of anything rushed through congress without getting fucked up so much to please everyone that it ends up being a useless heap of shit that wastes time and (our) money.



The 2,000-page bill that was attempted to be pushed through in the lame duck session this December.


----------



## unitas (Feb 19, 2011)

AFAIK, the bill makes union government employees pay 5.8% into their pension plans (non-union already pay 6.3%), and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums, both of which are about half as much as private, non-government workers pay.

It's also helpful to know that these union government workers make 17% more money than non-union government workers, and 25% more than non-government workers.

And like others have said, you can't keep spending more than you take in. And this bill is bringing benefits cost into line with the rest of the workforce, which is hardly 'slashing' pay. I'm sorry but boo-hoo. At least the governor is merely making them pay what others already have to pay instead of laying them off altogether.


----------



## AySay (Feb 22, 2011)

Why does yahoo news have the most disgustingly right wing crazies dominating the comment boards?

Wisconsin protesters want Fox News to &#8216;tell the truth&#8217; - Yahoo! News

Just look at highest rated, or most replied.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Feb 22, 2011)

AySay said:


> Why does yahoo news have the most disgustingly right wing crazies dominating the comment boards?
> 
> Wisconsin protesters want Fox News to tell the truth - Yahoo! News
> 
> Just look at highest rated, or most replied.


Yahoo comments are ALWAYS like that.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 23, 2011)

Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch

Oh Snap!


----------



## synrgy (Feb 23, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Scott Walker Gets Punked By Journalist Pretending To Be David Koch
> 
> Oh Snap!



Dammit, you 'd me! 

Such _delicious_ schadenfreude.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2011)

> Murphy as Koch: You gotta love that Mika Brzezinski; she's a real piece of ass.


----------



## Randy (Feb 23, 2011)

Indiana Official: "Use Live Ammunition" Against Wisconsin Protesters | Mother Jones


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 23, 2011)

I'll see you and raise:


----------



## synrgy (Feb 23, 2011)

ddtonfire said:


> I'll see you and raise:
> Scott Walker hate



But he has such a lovely voice!!


----------



## pink freud (Feb 23, 2011)

To be fair, they could have been talking about a photo-shoot...




[/strawspulledatrandom]


----------



## ddtonfire (Feb 23, 2011)

And the Indiana official was being figurative, too! 
But hey, at least he got terminated... in the dismissal sense.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 23, 2011)

unitas said:


> AFAIK, the bill makes union government employees pay 5.8% into their pension plans (non-union already pay 6.3%), and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums, both of which are about half as much as private, non-government workers pay.
> 
> It's also helpful to know that these union government workers make 17% more money than non-union government workers, and 25% more than non-government workers.
> 
> And like others have said, you can't keep spending more than you take in. And this bill is bringing benefits cost into line with the rest of the workforce, which is hardly 'slashing' pay. I'm sorry but boo-hoo. At least the governor is merely making them pay what others already have to pay instead of laying them off altogether.



This bill has nothing to do with making up the deficit. This is such an egregious display of cronyism it is sickening. It is about busting unions and providing no-bid contracts to his right-wing billionaire supporters the Koch's.

Wisconsin was on pace to have a budget surplus in 2011 of $120 million. Then Scott Walker got elected and turned the projected surplus into a deficit most directly by slashing corporate taxes. 60% of companies in Wisconsin that earn more than $100 million annually will pay zero taxes, yet Scott Walker's solution is to cut benefits to teachers making $30,000. This is just asinine to me.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 23, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> This bill has nothing to do with making up the deficit. This is such an egregious display of cronyism it is sickening. It is about busting unions and providing no-bid contracts to his right-wing billionaire supporters the Koch's.
> 
> Wisconsin was on pace to have a budget surplus in 2011 of $120 million. Then Scott Walker got elected and turned the projected surplus into a deficit most directly by slashing corporate taxes. 60% of companies in Wisconsin that earn more than $100 million annually will pay zero taxes, yet Scott Walker's solution is to cut benefits to teachers making $30,000. This is just asinine to me.



so making GOVERNMENT unions require their own GOVERNMENT workers to pay into their own retirement is asinine? the reason you want their collective bargaining taken away is because without that piece removed from the board there is no way you could get a teachers union (or any public union) to agree to anything. the private unions in WI dont like how the public unions are acting in this manner. hell FDR was an opponent of public unions, and he is the most famed union president. what you see is the result of spoiled people protesting because they have to cut back in bad economy. boo-freaking-hoo 

this isn't a move for Koch, the reason you are seeing the protests you are seeing is because state governments are now taking shots against the BIGGEST constituencies of the Democratic party, big unions. thats why the DNC supporters are busing supporters in from other states. this should be no surprise considering walker campaigned on this 

and on the topic of projected surpluses http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/18/rachel-maddow/rachel-maddow-says-wisconsin-track-have-budget-sur/ 
listening to Rachel Maddow still IMO has yet to yield any positive results. there was indeed a projected deficit. besides, how could have walker created a deficit from the surplus without having finalized his own budget yet? 

btw lower corporate taxes equal corporate expansion which equates to more income tax revenue. its been proven to work before and is currently the only reason Texas isn't red lining.

normally i dont like posting in this section, but the reason i felt the need is because public unions are crushing my state economically, the sooner these leaches get ousted in other states the sooner mine can get their collective rears in gear and get led by example 



unitas said:


> AFAIK, the bill makes union government employees pay 5.8% into their pension plans (non-union already pay 6.3%), and 12.6% of their health insurance premiums, both of which are about half as much as private, non-government workers pay.
> 
> It's also helpful to know that these union government workers make 17% more money than non-union government workers, and 25% more than non-government workers.
> 
> And like others have said, you can't keep spending more than you take in. And this bill is bringing benefits cost into line with the rest of the workforce, which is hardly 'slashing' pay. I'm sorry but boo-hoo. At least the governor is merely making them pay what others already have to pay instead of laying them off altogether.



^ this x1000000


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 23, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> so making GOVERNMENT unions require their own GOVERNMENT workers to pay into their own retirement is asinine? the reason you want their collective bargaining taken away is because without that piece removed from the board there is no way you could get a teachers union (or any public union) to agree to anything. the private unions in WI dont like how the public unions are acting in this manner. hell FDR was an opponent of public unions, and he is the most famed union president. what you see is the result of spoiled people protesting because they have to cut back in bad economy. boo-freaking-hoo
> 
> this isn't a move for Koch, the reason you are seeing the protests you are seeing is because state governments are now taking shots against the BIGGEST constituencies of the Democratic party, big unions. thats why the DNC supporters are busing supporters in from other states. this should be no surprise considering walker campaigned on this
> 
> ...



I guess you are less cynical than I am, but when two energy industry billionaires donate hundreds of thousands to elect Scott Walker, then he in turn tries to pass a bill allowing for the privatization of public power plants without taking bids, it seems a little corrupt. Throw in the fact that he has a 20 minute conversation discussing strategy with a person he believes to be one of them and you still believe they have no vested interest in all of this?

Also, I never said making them pay more into their pensions and healthcare was asinine. The workers themselves agreed to it, they just don't want their collective bargaining rights stripped, which is what this is really all about. What is asinine is claiming that doing so is necessary to fix the budget problem when there are much better options. Fixing the budget doesn't seem to be the primary goal here.

How about throwing out tax incentives for hiring instead of giving tax cuts, which would better address the unemployment problem and in turn increase income tax revenues. Give incentives for investment and expansion. Simply providing tax cuts to corporations doesn't guarantee anything, they could take the money and invest out of state or overseas.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 23, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> so making GOVERNMENT unions require their own GOVERNMENT workers to pay into their own retirement is asinine? the reason you want their collective bargaining taken away is because without that piece removed from the board there is no way you could get a teachers union (or any public union) to agree to anything. the private unions in WI dont like how the public unions are acting in this manner. hell FDR was an opponent of public unions, and he is the most famed union president. what you see is the result of spoiled people protesting because they have to cut back in bad economy. boo-freaking-hoo
> 
> this isn't a move for Koch, the reason you are seeing the protests you are seeing is because state governments are now taking shots against the BIGGEST constituencies of the Democratic party, big unions. thats why the DNC supporters are busing supporters in from other states. this should be no surprise considering walker campaigned on this
> 
> ...



You do realize that they offered to comply with all the benefit cuts as long as they kept their right to collectively bargain, right? Again, this isn't about the money, they already offered a plan that addressed that and were rejected because Walker wants them gone entirely.


----------



## Mexi (Feb 25, 2011)

slashing money from education is sure to put America back on track!


----------



## -42- (Feb 25, 2011)

Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 26, 2011)

-42- said:


> Supply-side economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Seriously?


----------



## Explorer (Feb 26, 2011)

I always thought that Democratic presidents took care of business by inplementing policies which helped recover from Republican presidents. So, Carter "whipped inflation now," giving prosperity through the beginning of Reagan's presidency, Reagan took those gains and then drove things downward and handed things over to Bush, Clinton recovered and gave us the well funded military and successful economy of W., and now Obama has to fix the mess left by W. grinding down the military and the economy, and trashing the budget surplus in the process.

At this point, wouldn't the lesson learned be that W.'s arguments for tax cuts failed utterly? I'm always amazed that people haven't made that connection yet....


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I always thought that Democratic presidents took care of business by inplementing policies which helped recover from Republican presidents. So, Carter "whipped inflation now," giving prosperity through the beginning of Reagan's presidency, Reagan took those gains and then drove things downward and handed things over to Bush, Clinton recovered and gave us the well funded military and successful economy of W., and now Obama has to fix the mess left by W. grinding down the military and the economy, and trashing the budget surplus in the process.
> 
> At this point, wouldn't the lesson learned be that W.'s arguments for tax cuts failed utterly? I'm always amazed that people haven't made that connection yet....



Lol that's certainly a very unique way of looking at things


----------



## orb451 (Feb 26, 2011)

RenegadeDave said:


> Lol that's certainly a very unique way of looking at things



And that's certainly a nice way of putting it


----------



## -42- (Feb 26, 2011)

I would have to disagree. Most of our economic troubles are caused by over-speculation which (normally) has little to do with government policy and quite a bit to do with individual buyer expectations.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 26, 2011)

pink freud said:


> You do realize that they offered to comply with all the benefit cuts as long as they kept their right to collectively bargain, right? Again, this isn't about the money, they already offered a plan that addressed that and were rejected because Walker wants them gone entirely.



and if it was a private union i would have a problem with that. however its a government union. i.e. we pay for the whole package (the employees, and the union, all tax subsidized). public employee unions are useless as we the people elect officials to fairly and economically set the salaries of public employees, give them the right to unionize and the voice of people is lost completely. they agreed to those cuts for a very specific reason, with collective bargaining, those changes are always temporary. say walker is a one term governor, the public unions could very easily (i've seen happen in my town a few times) negotiate pensions, benefits and medical back, or close to, the current state with the help of a sympathetic state government. Walker means to solve the problem permanently, not continue it. 



ElDuderino said:


> Throw in the fact that he has a 20 minute conversation discussing strategy with a person he believes to be one of them and you still believe they have no vested interest in all of this?
> 
> Also, I never said making them pay more into their pensions and healthcare was asinine. The workers themselves agreed to it, they just don't want their collective bargaining rights stripped, which is what this is really all about. What is asinine is claiming that doing so is necessary to fix the budget problem when there are much better options. Fixing the budget doesn't seem to be the primary goal here.
> 
> How about throwing out tax incentives for hiring instead of giving tax cuts, which would better address the unemployment problem and in turn increase income tax revenues. Give incentives for investment and expansion. Simply providing tax cuts to corporations doesn't guarantee anything, they could take the money and invest out of state or overseas.



1) heard the tapes, wasn't surprised at the contents because i found his strategies fairly transparent. 

2) see above post explaining why agreement proves nothing in the long run. 

3) tax incentives dont work. why? to understand this you first have to understand that a business exists to offer service(s) to a paying public, not to create jobs. jobs exist inside a business because it is impossible to (once an enterprise has reached a certain size) for a single man or woman to run alone. thus they hire employees, often with specific specialties, to run or assist in running, the various aspects of said business. as the business expands further, said assistants need help as well, and thus the head of business authorizes the hiring of more employees to meet the growing demand for the service he or she is providing. note not at any one time will a man or woman enter the entrepreneurial realm with the intent of "i want to start a business to create many jobs". if the intent is on jobs and not the service, the business will fail. so sum up, businesses exist to offer service to a paying public, not to create jobs. 

how this ties into incentives: unless the market (people who pay for your service) has the incentive (the spare money they make and can spend on what you as a business offer) to give your company, then the hiring of more employees is fruitless and costly. the new hires will not be able to draw more customers to your business, and will then be an additional burden to the company. unless the business is profitable, then the offering of tax incentives for hiring will not work. now in a bad economy like this, where everyone is saving more money than they spend, the offering of tax incentives for hiring will doubly not work. the business is hurting because of lack of dollars being spent, said business has probably laid off people they couldn't afford to keep. in addition to this, the price of doing business in the USA is unfairly high, so money is continually being spent to stay afloat. so some ill-informed politician, in order to be re-elected (obama *cough* *cough*) says he will create jobs for americans by giving businesses tax incentives. now said business owner has a choice: alleviate said unfair tax burden on his/her company by hiring new employees to positions that will not expand business and ultimately cost him/her more money in salaries for said unnecessary workers (because the tax break will not be enough to cover this); or take the hit on taxes, and hope you end up riding the storm out till your customers return with the improvement of the economy. guess which one most businesses take? the second option, because its a) bad business and b) it will save the company more money... and everyone tries to save money in a bad economy. 

solutions: 1) lower business taxes, this give companies the advantage lowering costs which will be reflected in the market prices for customers and create more incentive to buy (they will do this in order to survive). 2) lower taxes on consumers, giving them more spare change which can be used to create incentive. 3) combine 1 and 2 for best results, as an added step throw in bonus tax holidays during slow or flailing business quarters to spur even more buying. these steps will also increase tax revenue immensely as wealth is now being created instead of lost. 

annnnnnnd done


----------



## Xaios (Feb 26, 2011)




----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 26, 2011)

I guess back to the original topic, my point is there are better ways to close the budget deficit rather than attacking middle class workers. I think the image the Republicans are trying to portray is that these are rich, overpaid whiners complaining about losing some of their money, when that is far from the case.

Several studies have shown that public sector workers are not overpaid in comparison to private sector workers (http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf). As Paul Krugman puts it, "Public sector workers are not, on average, grossly overpaid compared with the private sector  period. You can fiddle at the edges of this conclusion, but its just not possible to conclude, based on any honest assessment of the data, that schoolteachers are the new welfare queens."

This is all a cheap shot at labor unions and middle class citizens disguised as a solution to the budget deficit.


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 26, 2011)

Explorer said:


> I always thought that Democratic presidents took care of business by inplementing policies which helped recover from Republican presidents. So, Carter "whipped inflation now," giving prosperity through the beginning of Reagan's presidency, Reagan took those gains and then drove things downward and handed things over to Bush, Clinton recovered and gave us the well funded military and successful economy of W., and now Obama has to fix the mess left by W. grinding down the military and the economy, and trashing the budget surplus in the process.
> 
> At this point, wouldn't the lesson learned be that W.'s arguments for tax cuts failed utterly? I'm always amazed that people haven't made that connection yet....



You just melted my brain.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> I guess back to the original topic, my point is there are better ways to close the budget deficit rather than attacking middle class workers. I think the image the Republicans are trying to portray is that these are rich, overpaid whiners complaining about losing some of their money, when that is far from the case.
> 
> Several studies have shown that public sector workers are not overpaid in comparison to private sector workers (http://epi.3cdn.net/8808ae41b085032c0b_8um6bh5ty.pdf). As Paul Krugman puts it, "Public sector workers are not, on average, grossly overpaid compared with the private sector &#8212; period. You can fiddle at the edges of this conclusion, but it&#8217;s just not possible to conclude, based on any honest assessment of the data, that schoolteachers are the new welfare queens."
> 
> This is all a cheap shot at labor unions and middle class citizens disguised as a solution to the budget deficit.



okay.... technically they're not "workers" because they dont contribute directly to the local economy. one could argue that they prepare the future generations for a better economy, but given America's current education standards, and that IMO college prepares you far more than public school do.. lets just call them employees shall we? 

on the point of them being overpaid, yes they are. how you ask? what private sector job gives you the benefits, pension, and salary for a job where you dont work a full year? think about it, they get over two months off in the middle of the year, and on top of that still qualify for vacation during the school year, in addition to school breaks and staff development days, the latter which take up less than a half days work.

so yes, i say grossly overpaid for the amount of service per hour. honestly give that middle class engineer a tax break, that man or woman is far more deserving


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> okay.... technically they're not "workers" because they dont contribute directly to the local economy. one could argue that they prepare the future generations for a better economy, but given America's current education standards, and that IMO college prepares you far more than public school do.. lets just call them employees shall we?
> 
> on the point of them being overpaid, yes they are. how you ask? what private sector job gives you the benefits, pension, and salary for a job where you dont work a full year? think about it, they get over two months off in the middle of the year, and on top of that still qualify for vacation during the school year, in addition to school breaks and staff development days, the latter which take up less than a half days work.
> 
> so yes, i say grossly overpaid for the amount of service per hour. honestly give that middle class engineer a tax break, that man or woman is far more deserving


 
They're not "workers" because they don't contribute to the local economy? So public workers don't buy houses, cars, groceries? Don't be ridiculous, they contribute just as much to the local economy as any private sector worker does. Also, people invest in their child's education by buying homes in communities with good schools and teachers, further bolstering the economy.

To answer your question about what private sector job gives you a salary, pension, and benefits where you don't work a full year - private school teachers.

And on the point of them being overpaid, no they're not. The study I linked you to in my last post shows when making comparisons controlling for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, and disability, that public employees are not overpaid but are in fact slightly undercompensated.

On average, state and local public sector workers are more highly educated than private sector workers (54% have 4-year degrees compared to 35% in the private sector). At the same time, college educated public sector workers on average earn 25% less than their private sector counterparts. Your complaints that they get more time off is valid, but controlling for that they still are undercompensated.

As the researcher puts it, "Several governors, policy makers, and others have
alleged that public employee unions and collective bargaining have produced an over-compensated workforce and that unions are the source of excessive compensation. It is a provocative hypothesis, but its main prediction has been falsified by the research reported in this study. State and local government employees are not excessively compensated." These findings have been replicated in two other national studies. 

He also goes on to say, "Public-sector workers compensation is neither the cause, nor can it be the solution to a states financial problems. Only an economic recovery can begin to plug the hole in the states budgets. Unfortunately, the states own current budget balancing efforts may prolong the economic downturn by increasing unemployment and reducing demand for products and services."


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

Maybe you should be looking at the monopoly the WEA Trust has on healthcare benefits for their union members. But before you look at that, look at the average salary for teachers in Wisconsin as compared to say, California for example:

Wisconsin Average Teacher Salary: $52,644 for year 2009-2010
Not including healthcare, pension and other benefits (vacation, etc)

Average Secondary Teacher Salary in major metro areas:

Green Bay: $55,110
Kenosha: $68,400
Madison: $50,770
Milwaukee: $54,620
Racine: $49,710

Contrasted with California, where the average secondary teacher salary was $63,860

And in major metro areas:

LA, Long Beach & Glendale: $63,370
Oakland, Fremont, Hayward: $64,630
Sacramento, Arden-Arcade, Roseville: $59,050
San Fran, San Mateo, Redwood City: $64,100
Santa Ana, Irvine, Anaheim: $73,890


Somehow paying the proposed 4-6% of their *own* retirement instead of .2% that they pay currently is unfair.  And 12.5% of their *own* teacher healthcare costs, instead of 5-6% is also unfair .

Poor poor teachers. How will they ever survive?

And how much sense does it make to FORCE teachers into these unions, paying union dues before they even receive any benefits? Not much to me at least.

Everyone outraged at stripping the collective bargaining rights from the unions seems to overlook the fact that they *still* keep their collective bargaining rights for salary negotiations. They only lose them with respect to keeping their bloated benefits package and keeping under-performing, no talent hacks from keeping their teaching positions ad infinitum. So yeah, they lose that level of protection for doing a piss poor job. Cry me a river. 

In the private sector if you don't do your job well enough, there's *always* someone there that will work at your wage or less, and do a better job. Want a raise? You have to earn it. Want to even *keep* your job? You have to earn it. What is so hard to understand about that? Being a teacher doesn't exempt you from anything. And this is my problem with unions. They're an outdated relic from the days of piss poor factory working conditions during the Industrial Revolution that saw large companies treating their workers like slaves or indentured servants.

Those days are LONG over. Yet people claim that unions are still needed today. Why? To keep people in positions that otherwise would have been out on their ass a long time ago? Protection? From whom? 

And the point about the WEA Trust is, they have near monopoly control on healthcare for Wisconsin teachers. WEA Trust healthcare costs any district using it (which is 64% of districts in Wisconsin) $1665 per MONTH for family benefits. So God forbid you're a teacher with a husband or wife that is also covered by you, or maybe some children, your health insurance cost is $1665 per month. Or $19,980 per year, PER individual covered. And yet many districts can't switch providers to lower cost healthcare options because any negotiation for a change must go through arbitration... and the unions... and guess who the union favors? WEA Trust healthcare coverage. 

And yet, there's no room to trim the fat? No room for low cost alternatives? 

I have little sympathy for these greedy fucks.


----------



## Customisbetter (Feb 27, 2011)

orb451 said:


> In the private sector if you don't do your job well enough, there's *always* someone there that will work at your wage or less, and do a better job. Want a raise? You have to earn it. Want to even *keep* your job? You have to earn it. What is so hard to understand about that? Being a teacher doesn't exempt you from anything. And this is my problem with unions. They're an outdated relic from the days of piss poor factory working conditions during the Industrial Revolution that saw large companies treating their workers like slaves or indentured servants.
> 
> Those days are LONG over. Yet people claim that unions are still needed today. Why? To keep people in positions that otherwise would have been out on their ass a long time ago? Protection? From whom?



I'm literally going to vote for you in every upcoming election I participate in.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

Customisbetter said:


> I'm literally going to vote for you in every upcoming election I participate in.



Don't vote for me Ed, vote Cthulhu, why vote for the lesser evil? 

Seriously though, I believe VERY strongly in meritocracy. You get, that which you actually *earn* and are *entitled* to very little in life.
It seems Unions started out with a noble and just cause and, like many things in life, became bastardized into their current incarnation.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Maybe you should be looking at the monopoly the WEA Trust has on healthcare benefits for their union members. But before you look at that, look at the average salary for teachers in Wisconsin as compared to say, California for example:
> 
> Wisconsin Average Teacher Salary: $52,644 for year 2009-2010
> Not including healthcare, pension and other benefits (vacation, etc)
> ...



That mean salary for teachers is below the median household income in Wisconsin. But teachers have better than average benefits because the public employers devote more of their total compensation package as non-wage benefits such as pensions and healthcare to offset the low wages. 

Wisconsin public workers (including teachers) allocate 12.9% of their total compensation package to health insurance compared their private sector counterparts (in firms with 1-99 workers) who allocate 7.3%. So your "outrageous" health insurance numbers aren't all that outrageous. Overall, public employees receive 26.7% of their total compensation package as non-wage benefits, compared to 19.4% for private sector workers. This tradeoff is made by the employee unions, reflecting the willingness of public employees to forgo higher wages for better benefits.

Don't forget the fact that a college educated public employee (including teachers) in Wisconsin make 28% less in wages and 25% less in overall compensation than private sector workers in the state with similar human capital worth. Simply comparing private and public employee benefits as you did leads to an incorrect conclusions. So your assault on those "greedy little fucks" who do a "piss-poor job" seems pretty baseless.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> That mean salary for teachers is below the median household income in Wisconsin. But teachers have better than average benefits because the public employers devote more of their total compensation package as non-wage benefits such as pensions and healthcare to offset the low wages.
> 
> Wisconsin public workers (including teachers) allocate 12.9% of their total compensation package to health insurance compared their private sector counterparts (in firms with 1-99 workers) who allocate 7.3%. So your "outrageous" health insurance numbers aren't all that outrageous. Overall, public employees receive 26.7% of their total compensation package as non-wage benefits, compared to 19.4% for private sector workers. This tradeoff is made by the employee unions, reflecting the willingness of public employees to forgo higher wages for better benefits.
> 
> Don't forget the fact that a college educated public employee (including teachers) in Wisconsin make 28% less in wages and 25% less in overall compensation than private sector workers in the state with similar human capital worth. Simply comparing private and public employee benefits as you did leads to an incorrect conclusions. So your assault on those "greedy little fucks" who do a "piss-poor job" seems pretty baseless.



How can you compare firms with 1-99 workers and their 7.3% contribution to state unions (many thousands of workers) contributing 12.9%? Of course they're going to be contributing 12.9%, look at their benefits package. Are the firms with 1-99 workers getting pensions for the rest of their natural lives after they've retired? Are they given 2 months a year off in addition to other paid holidays and vacation time? 

I think it absolutely is outrageous what these teachers are paid, in total when it comes to their salary AND benefits. Their *willingness* is more due to the unions themselves in the sense that they have no choice. If you want to be a teacher in Wisconsin, you have to be a member of the union. That means the usual union "dues" shakedown, and the protection they get in the long term. That's the problem. They're only willing to forego higher salaries when they know they can't be fired and there's no competition or driving force to actually do their job well enough to keep it. They only need to do their job well enough not to get fired. 

And how easy is it again to fire a union member teacher? Or for that matter a tenured union teacher? Oh that's right, nigh on impossible.

Sorry but don't act like they're saints when it's pretty clear why they've chosen that path. If they want to make more money, since they're all so overly educated, go work in the private sector where you have to actually, you know, compete for work. Where you have to compete to keep your job.

Somehow teachers are automatically elevated to saintly status for some people. It boggles my mind. What should they make a year, not including their cushy benefits package? $100K? $150K? How much is enough to *reward* them for all their *hard* work?

And in a state with a budget deficit, the heart of this matter, what's wrong with asking for a little common sense fiscally? Guess that's too much to ask for . Want to get out of a deficit? Stop spending in some areas and raise, yes RAISE taxes.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

orb451 said:


> How can you compare firms with 1-99 workers and their 7.3% contribution to state unions (many thousands of workers) contributing 12.9%? Of course they're going to be contributing 12.9%, look at their benefits package. Are the firms with 1-99 workers getting pensions for the rest of their natural lives after they've retired? Are they given 2 months a year off in addition to other paid holidays and vacation time?



You don't get it. The study CONTROLLED for hours worked, and they are still underpaid compared to similar private sector workers. And no, workers at those firms in Wisconsin are not getting pensions the rest of their natural lives because the public workers are paying in almost 4 times more. Public employees such as teachers have better benefits because they pay for them. They receive lower wages in return for the pensions and healthcare. But as I said before, including the better non-wage compensation, total compensation is still lower for public workers.

The author of the study I linked states "Rather than a cause of excessive compensation, unionization is a counterbalance to downward pressures on compensation. It is well known that taxpayers oppose higher taxes and thus exert considerable pressure on elected representatives to resist increases in compensation, creating a formidable incentive and opportunity to hold government pay below market. Unionization represents a viable legal response to employer labor market power." So it seems they still do serve a purpose.

As far as common sense fiscally, you honestly think forcing underpaid middle class workers to take pay cuts is the solution to the budget situation?


----------



## Explorer (Feb 27, 2011)

What I don't get is why there should even be a meritocracy. Clearly what would be best for employers would be having the right to fire people without cause, and to replace them with newer employees who would be cheaper.

Employees having the right to bargain collectively just needlessly gives them the right to challenge being let go without cause, to get decent benefits, and all kinds of other nonsense which makes it difficult for employers to make more profits. 

Sure, in the old days unions were necessary, but in the present those older draconian practices were finally stopped by... well, by unions. 

And, in spite of the same arguments being made against unions now as those which were used before unions were protected... I'm positive that some attitudes have changed towards those previously despised workers.

Just look at Orb's post, and you can't help but feel the love.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> You don't get it. The study CONTROLLED for hours worked, and they are still underpaid compared to similar private sector workers. And no, workers at those firms in Wisconsin are not getting pensions the rest of their natural lives because the public workers are paying in almost 4 times more. They receive lower wages in return for the pensions and healthcare. But as I said before, including the better non-wage compensation, total compensation is still lower for public workers.



And I still maintain, they have a pretty damned nice benefits package no matter which way you look at it. What is wrong with wanting them to contribute their fair share to support that? 

And why is Scott Walker demonized for wanting to relieve the WEA Trust's strangle hold on union workers' ability to shop around for lower cost healthcare coverage, to again, you know, save the state some money?

WEA Trust healthcare coverage premiums run $734/month/individual compared to non WEA coverage @ $614. Family coverage runs $1665 for WEA Trust and $1466 for other plans. For schools that pay 100 percent of premiums which is ludicrous in and of itself, it's $760/month for WEA Trust coverage compared to $590/month for alternatives and $1724/month for families (again WEA Trust) compared to $1466/month for alternatives.

The WEA Trust has a net worth of 316 million and is managed by 12 individuals, each taking in over 100K and in some cases as much as 400K per year. 

And yet, taking away *their* ability to maintain their monopoly on coverage and exorbitant costs is somehow awful? 

So yeah, you're right, I just don't get it. I don't get how anyone could complain about contributing what's needed to support their lifestyle and I don't get why anyone could complain about trying to shore up a deficit by cutting spending, or in this case, ALLOWING competition and other healthcare providers to even *present* lower cost alternatives to WEA Trust coverage. Some schools have been lucky enough to dump WEA coverage and subsequently saved six figures in the first year thereafter, and maintained steady rates in following years, and while still maintaining good quality coverage. 

Amazing.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

<kid rock> Trollin' trollin' trollin' trollin'... trollin' trollin' trollin' trollin'</kid rock>


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And I still maintain, they have a pretty damned nice benefits package no matter which way you look at it. What is wrong with wanting them to contribute their fair share to support that?
> 
> And why is Scott Walker demonized for wanting to relieve the WEA Trust's strangle hold on union workers' ability to shop around for lower cost healthcare coverage, to again, you know, save the state some money?
> 
> ...



You still don't get what the research is saying. You can't simply compare public worker pension to private worker pension, public worker healthcare to private worker healthcare. It is apples to oranges. You have to compare total compensation which is wages and non-wage benefits. Doing this shows that Wisconsin public employees earn 4.8% less than comparable private sector workers working comparable annual hours.

Wisconsin public employers devote on average 26.7% of employee compensation to non-wage benefits, whereas private employers devote between 19.4% and 22.8% to those benefits. Public employers devote a larger share of their compensation packages to health insurance and pension benefits than do private employers. Health insurance accounts for 12.9% of state and local government compensation compared with 7% to 9.7% of private sector compensation. Retirement benefits account for 8% of state and local government compensation costs compared with 2.5% to 4.9% in the private sector. These better benefits are paid for by lower wages.

Yeah, the reason Scott Walker is being demonized is because of his stance against the WEA... not his lack of competence or corrupt appearance.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> Comments



And if you want to rein in a budget deficit, doesn't it make sense to cut spending wherever possible? And doesn't it stand to reason that in order to cut costs, you have look at where you're spending money? And doesn't it follow that if you're spending more per month, per individual for overly expensive healthcare premiums, that maybe, just maybe, you should look for lower cost alternatives? 

Setting aside for a minute the union workers compensation levels, as clearly that's an argument that is going nowhere fast.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

I just believe there are better ways of dealing with a budget deficit than taking money out of the pockets of middle class workers while simultaneously damaging your state's education system. This is something we probably won't agree on either.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> I just believe there are better ways of dealing with a budget deficit than taking money out of the pockets of middle class workers while simultaneously damaging your state's education system. This is something we probably won't agree on either.



So what are your thoughts on better ways, setting aside the rhetoric and histrionics for a moment?

You're right, we don't agree and don't have to either, nothing wrong with that. But I am genuinely curious what solutions you'd propose, or what options you've heard others propose that make sense?

Personally I don't see any way around spending cuts. They're a bitter pill to swallow for sure, but one that must be dealt with. Seems like the logical thing to do is spend less than your expenditures (all things being equal). And if, in this instance, lower cost healthcare insurance is available, which it is, then it makes a helluva lot of sense to go with a lower cost option than a higher cost option.

And, if other cuts are needed to social welfare or medicaid/medicare programs, then so be it. At the very least, until the deficit is closed or shrunken considerably. I believe we ought to be doing the same things in California where I live, and hopefully our new governor can accomplish that, though I remain skeptical until I start seeing results.


----------



## snowblind56 (Feb 27, 2011)

What Walker is doing, is pitting neighbor against neighbor. 

After reading a ton of these comments(not on ss.org, but mostly on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal), it seems like most the people who are for this are jealous because they don't have the benefits that the public workers have, so they want them knocked down a peg. 

That's fucked up. If you want the benefits that teachers have, go get a 4 year college degree, or maybe a Master's, and then go baby sit other people's kids all day that try to put you through hell and you can't do anything about. Jeez, you give a kid the wrong look these days and their parents go to the school board, complain and get you punished. 

If they pass this, why would anyone want to be a teacher? It's well known that young teachers don't get paid dick. They get paid well after they have been teaching for years.

The other retarded thing about this is that Walker has excluded the Police and Fire Dept and State Troopers. Well, just in Milwaukee, they make up 65% of the public work force. But since 9-11, the Police & Fire Dept are to precious to touch.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 27, 2011)

You heard it here first: Tax the rich and solve budget shortfall - JSOnline

This sounds much better to me.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 27, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> You heard it here first: Tax the rich and solve budget shortfall - JSOnline
> 
> This sounds much better to me.



Ah yes, that same old mantra: Tax the Rich.

That solves everything doesn't it? That doesn't work. What taxing the rich actually is, is taking from some by *force* and spending it on others. So suppose for a second hypothetically that you started a small business that grew into a much larger, much more profitable business, you'd be OK with Uncle Sam reaching into your wallet and taking money out and spending it on something, and someone else? Shouldn't you have a say in that?

Is that the new American Dream? You can only become *profitable* to a certain point. After which you are required to give up that which you have earned to those less needy? Shouldn't charity be voluntary and not compulsory? 

Maryland created a tax on the rich that was supposed to bring in $106 million. Instead it wound up costing them $257 million. Another effect of higher taxes on the rich is simply that they leave, as in leave the state, thereby depriving it of the income they so hoped they'd be getting and/or they close up their businesses and move to other states or countries.

You might be thinking, well good, fuck them then. Except, now the businesses that once employed people throughout a state get taxed to death, they leave and with them so go the jobs. Wisconsin's unemployment rate is what, about ~8-9% at the moment? You want to tax big businesses and wealthy individuals (who own the businesses) and you think they're going to sit there and smile about it? Of course not. They're going to leave, in droves. And take their jobs, and their wealth, elsewhere.

And that's good for the economy how? And good for workers how? It's not and it's so simple, yet it eludes so many. On paper it just seems like you're being all noble and altruistic, ala Robin Hood, steal from the Rich, give to the Poor, right? Except things don't work that way. Like it or not, wealthy individuals are more often than not, business owners. They're in the business of producing goods and services that the public buys, if you impede their ability to make money, they're going to move to greener pastures. You won't get any more money from them, and you'll have higher unemployment rates as a result.

Don't take my word for it, look at California and how many businesses have been driven out of state by higher taxes. Look, the economy has been in the shitter for at least a few years now right? Between that and raising taxes, you think you're going to keep big businesses and top earners in your state (or Wisconsin) by making it more costly? Seriously? Good luck with that. They tried it here and our unemployment rate is around ~12.5% thanks to businesses leaving en mass. 

The bitter pill is still the fact that taxes must be raised on individuals, they're *going* to come off the backs of the middle class whether people like it or not. And sooner, rather than later, the nation as a whole will wake up to the other bitter pill that is Medicare/Medicaid costs and the elderly, sick, and otherwise disabled will have to wake up to the reality that the money is drying up like a puddle in the desert. But that's a whole different conversation.

Point is, the plan put forth in your linked article, minus all the rhetoric and nonsense commentary, makes sense on paper alone. In practice it won't hold water.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 28, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> I just believe there are better ways of dealing with a budget deficit than taking money out of the pockets of middle class workers while simultaneously damaging your state's education system. This is something we probably won't agree on either.



the state of wisconsin was already taking money out of the middle class (y'know, the ones that work private jobs that run the state government?) by doling out these golden pension plans to people who dont work all year round. "oh but private school teachers!!!" yeah, they're paid well, does the school pay that much into their pension? or continue to pay for health care after they retire? no. by lessening the amount spent on these people who cost more than they contribute, you will help the WI middle class.




orb451 said:


> So what are your thoughts on better ways, setting aside the rhetoric and histrionics for a moment?
> 
> You're right, we don't agree and don't have to either, nothing wrong with that. But I am genuinely curious what solutions you'd propose, or what options you've heard others propose that make sense?



if you read a page back he talked about using tax incentives, but then got a lesson in how they dont work


----------



## -42- (Feb 28, 2011)

Wisconsin has nothing on California. We still have no budget.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Feb 28, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Ah yes, that same old mantra: Tax the Rich.
> 
> That solves everything doesn't it? That doesn't work. What taxing the rich actually is, is taking from some by *force* and spending it on others. So suppose for a second hypothetically that you started a small business that grew into a much larger, much more profitable business, you'd be OK with Uncle Sam reaching into your wallet and taking money out and spending it on something, and someone else? Shouldn't you have a say in that?
> 
> ...


 The data from the last census supports this argument, if you look at states adding representatives, they are typically right to work states with low or no income tax. If you look at the states losing representatives it's typically old industrial states that have attempted to justify their slightly more wanton spending with soaking the rich taxes. People are voting with their feet.


----------



## orb451 (Feb 28, 2011)

RenegadeDave said:


> The data from the last census supports this argument, if you look at states adding representatives, they are typically right to work states with low or no income tax. If you look at the states losing representatives it's typically old industrial states that have attempted to justify their slightly more wanton spending with soaking the rich taxes. People are voting with their feet.



Exactly. And this doesn't even *address* the fundamental issue that solutions like taxing the rich are all about. That is, if you have a deficit of some kind and you want to fix it, by taxing the rich, you're just allowing your broken system and out of control spending to continue.

Imagine for a second if Wisconsin *did* tax the rich and they *didn't* actually leave the state and set aside all the other negative side effects that plan would have. Now Wisconsin has all this tax revenue from wealthy individuals so they can what? Continue to waste it on overpriced WEA Trust healthcare premiums? Keep everything else in the education system and unions at the status quo? Wow. What a wonderful solution.


----------



## snowblind56 (Feb 28, 2011)

I live in Wisconsin and they allow our County Executive to hold 2 full time government positions. He is our State Representative in the Assembly and our County Executive. That's two full time positions with two full time pensions. How is that right. That pretty much means he's doing a half-ass job at both positions, yet reaping twice the benefits. 

Also, buy taking money away from the middle class, it trickles down. That means less money to buy toys and less money to do stuff like go out to eat, which effects everybody from business owners down to waitress's and what not.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 28, 2011)

snowblind56 said:


> Also, buy taking money away from the middle class, it trickles down. That means less money to buy toys and less money to do stuff like go out to eat, which effects everybody from business owners down to waitress's and what not.



just no... you and the other guy are trying to make it seem that the state employees and the bulk of the middle class. they simply are not, they are the minority. as its been pointed out by orb, the unions can still negotiate salaries, the state just wants to limit the out of control pensions. the middle class i speak of are private working men and women, who contribute positively to the economy, i.e. they dont cost the state anything to be there. so stop this "hurting the middle class" rhetoric. its insulting to people who work all year round


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 28, 2011)

RenegadeDave said:


> Lol that's certainly a very unique way of looking at things



Not unique in the slightest, and is at least as demonstrably true as the "cut taxes for the rich grows the economy" canard. Truth be told, Reagan and Bush II got themselves out of recessions by indulging in massive Gov't spending, too, but that's not really on this topic.

Regardless, what's happening in Wisconsin is what the people of Wisconsin deserve for electing the douchebag in the first place. Modern Democrats are bad enough, but anyone who thinks the vast majority GOP candidates will do anything other than serve their actual constituency - the very rich - in this day and age is an idiot that has paid zero attention to recent history. I only expect it to get worse, however.


----------



## pink freud (Feb 28, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And if you want to rein in a budget deficit, doesn't it make sense to cut spending wherever possible?



It makes far more sense not to _cause_ the deficit in the first place by giving huge tax cuts to businesses just because they contributed to your campaign.


----------



## synrgy (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm just gonna leave this here..



> A Tea Partier, Union Member and a CEO are sitting at a table with a dozen cookies. The CEO immediately takes 11 cookies for himself. The CEO then turns to the Tea Partier and says, "Watch out for that union guy he wants part of your cookie."


----------



## synrgy (Feb 28, 2011)

On a more serious note, here's a related read I think most of you will find quite interesting:

The Wisconsin Lie Exposed &#8211; Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 28, 2011)

synrgy said:


> I'm just gonna leave this here..



That joke sums it up more succinctly than anything else I've seen.


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 28, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Ah yes, that same old mantra: Tax the Rich.
> 
> That solves everything doesn't it? That doesn't work. What taxing the rich actually is, is taking from some by *force* and spending it on others. So suppose for a second hypothetically that you started a small business that grew into a much larger, much more profitable business, you'd be OK with Uncle Sam reaching into your wallet and taking money out and spending it on something, and someone else? Shouldn't you have a say in that?
> 
> ...



You honestly believe a temporary 1.5% personal income tax increase is going to lead to mass emigration of big business from the state of Wisconsin? Seems pretty far-fetched to me. If you can back that up with any research, I'll believe you, but until then I'm not buying it. 

Is Reagan president again? Economists have proven your trickle-down theory isn't credible. Tax cuts to the rich do not benefit the middle class. Quit throwing out your opinions as facts of public economics. 

The whole tax the rich thing is a bad idea you say? Among others, Joseph Stiglitz - a Nobel Prize winning economist, says you are wrong.

"A reduction in government spending on goods and services is thus likely to be more harmful to the economy in the short run than an increase in taxes or a reduction in transfer program spending. Within the sphere of changes to taxes and transfer programs, the impact on the economy depends primarily on the propensity to consume  that is, on how much of an additional dollar of income is spent rather than saved  among those who receive the transfer payments or pay the taxes. The more that the tax increases or transfer reductions are focused on those with lower propensities to consume
(that is, on those who spend less and save more of each additional dollar of income), the less damage is done to the weakened economy. Since higher-income families tend to have lower propensities to consume than lower-income families, *the least damaging approach in the short run involves tax
increases concentrated on higher-income families.*"

"For states interested in the impact only on their own economy rather than the national economy, the arguments made above are even stronger."

Just to let him sum things up for me, he says "The conclusion is that, if anything, tax increases on higher-income families are the least damaging mechanism for closing state fiscal deficits in the short run."

This is the last time I'm going to post in this thread. Facts don't seem to matter to some of you.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Feb 28, 2011)

ElDuderino said:


> You honestly believe a temporary 1.5% personal income tax increase is going to lead to mass emigration of big business from the state of Wisconsin? Seems pretty far-fetched to me. If you can back that up with any research, I'll believe you, but until then I'm not buying it.
> 
> Is Reagan president again? Economists have proven your trickle-down theory isn't credible. Tax cuts to the rich do not benefit the middle class. Quit throwing out your opinions as facts of public economics.
> 
> ...



what part of "only works on paper" do you have trouble grasping? or how about the census thing dave posted? "The data from the last census supports this argument, if you look at states adding representatives, they are typically right to work states with low or no income tax. If you look at the states losing representatives it's typically old industrial states that have attempted to justify their slightly more wanton spending with soaking the rich taxes. People are voting with their feet." - RenagadeDave. economics is the study of markets, markets are people, so economics is a study of how people spend money. and so far people have been predictably moving away from where the rich are taxed excessively, and creating jobs and wealth where taxes are more fair. and that is how stable state economies are made. 

btw stiglitz is an idiot 



synrgy said:


> On a more serious note, here's a related read I think most of you will find quite interesting:
> 
> The Wisconsin Lie Exposed &#8211; Taxpayers Actually Contribute Nothing To Public Employee Pensions - Rick Ungar - The Policy Page - Forbes



and i raise you this: http://www5.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2011/02/deferred_compensation_and_pensions


----------



## ElDuderino (Feb 28, 2011)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> what part of "only works on paper" do you have trouble grasping? or how about the census link posted? you are ignoring most of what we say as well. btw stiglitz is an idiot


 You have trouble assembling a coherent sentence, yet you are calling a Nobel Prize winning economist an idiot...


----------



## orb451 (Feb 28, 2011)

And yet again, folks seem content to fall back on high priced education, degrees and academic pedantry than actually admit that, maybe, their solution won't work.

For the record, I'm not advocating trickle down economics, or "Reagonomics". I'm just saying that taxing the "rich" has NOT worked out as well (if it all) as Democrats and Liberals think that it has. Again, Maryland is an excellent example of how it simply. Does. Not. Work. 

What is it in your collective thinking that prevents you from acknowledging or understanding that spending *more* than you take in, is a bad thing? Of course step one is always "don't do it in the first place". Yeah, no shit sherlock. That's like that anti-war rhetoric, don't want to lose a war or spend money on one? Don't get involved! Oh wow, amazing, so easy a caveman could do it. It's this profoundly naive line of thinking that has the rest of us living in the real world scratching our heads.

The world simply doesn't work like some of you seem to *think* that it works. Deficits and spending happen. We may not want them to, but regardless of party, if there's money to be spent, rest assured, it'll get spent somewhere, by someone. Count on it. And sooner or later, life or the world in general will throw you a curveball and the pristine plan you had in mind will get a nice shit stain on it and you'll have to deal with it.

This happens in life all the time, for every class, every color and indeed at every level of our government. People won't always act and do what you want them to. Even, and seemingly especially, when you *elect* them to do a job. And sooner or later, someone, somewhere must take on the unenviable task of cleaning up the mess. And yet, all I hear is a lot of finger pointing and blame game. Every. Fucking. Time. Always focused on blaming someone or something. Instead of actually trying to fix the fucking problem.

Right right right, Scott Walker's just twisting his moustache, bending over backwards to serve his big corporate masters. That's all that's happening here. Who's the idiot again?

What part of 1/3 of millionaires leaving Maryland do you people not understand? One year there were 3,000 returns filed by millionaires, the next year, there were 2,000 and on top of that, the 2,000 that paid taxes that following year, paid LESS than the year prior. If you need a noble laureate or some other academic "god" telling you (the collective you, not any individual here) that that's just bad, I don't know what to tell you. Seriously.

So yeah, forgive those of us who believe the numbers, and the people with wealth when they show clearly that stifling business, or impeding their ability to *stay* in business, is a "bad thing" with negative side effects.

I love how not a single one of you in this thread has come up with a single argument *for* the WEA Trust and their overly costly healthcare premiums. Those are costing tax payers IN Wisconsin, day in and day out. And yet, it's all about Republicans, and big business, and Tax the Rich and the middle class is getting the shaft, and poor union workers, etc.

One solution, tax the rich, that's all that's been brought up. That and a grip of rhetoric and nonsense. 

I'm not offering rhetoric. I'm not offering nonsense. I'm saying that there are solutions that work, and solutions that don't. Sorry, but tax the rich, with Maryland as an excellent example, does not work. And seeing California and it's steady decline as another example of what happens when you foster a "business hostile" environment. You make it harder for them to make money, and lo and behold, they leave. And so does the money. And the jobs.

I'm not saying Republicans are the heroes, or are without fault, etc etc etc. No one in my book is above reproach. Make sure you read that last sentence a few times before launching some bullshit attack on me or what you *think* I am, whom I like, etc. 

But setting aside parties, it makes SENSE to spend less and TAX MORE, for a time, to at *least* get things on an even keel. Unfortunately, the only ones who *can* pay more, are those of us in the "middle" class. So yeah, raising taxes is the way to go, and yeah that means money out of most of our pockets. It also means cutting back on social programs as well. I'm willing to do my part and pay higher taxes, so long as it means the government spends less too. If you believe in fixing things, put your money where your mouths are. I know I'm prepared to pay more. And if that means one less guitar a year, or a month, or one night out once in a while instead of once or twice a week, so fucking what? That's life. I'd rather *have* a job and a *little* extra money, than see a business close it's doors, cost me my income or those I know. A *little* of something is vastly better than a *lot* of nothing.


----------



## ElDuderino (Mar 1, 2011)

orb451 said:


> And yet again, folks seem content to fall back on high priced education, degrees and academic pedantry than actually admit that, maybe, their solution won't work.
> 
> For the record, I'm not advocating trickle down economics, or "Reagonomics". I'm just saying that taxing the "rich" has NOT worked out as well (if it all) as Democrats and Liberals think that it has. Again, Maryland is an excellent example of how it simply. Does. Not. Work.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but even the crux of your argument is failing you. You keep talking about Maryland, but the numbers there aren't on your side.

According to a study by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), the decrease in Maryland millionaire tax returns had less to do with millionaires leaving the state and more to do with the recessions effect on their income. The institute gathered data from the Maryland Office of the Comptroller on millionaire tax returns from before and after Maryland's 2007 tax hike. Their findings showed that out of 3,837 less millionaire tax returns filed in 2008 compared to 2007, only 547 of them were due to state residency changes. The other 3,290 millionaires simply made less money during the recession and were therefore not subject to the millionaire tax. Not to mention the inflow of 1,680 millionaires as a result of millionaires moving into the state and increased incomes of existing residents. All the while, their unemployment rate stayed below the national average.

Other studies have resulted in similar conclusions. Princeton Universitys Policy Research Institute studied the effects of New Jerseys half millionaire tax that was passed in 2000. This half millionaire tax created a new tax bracket for those making over $500,000 a year. The study found that while some out-migration did occur, the increase in tax revenue more than made up for the losses. New Jersey lost $37.7 million in tax revenue after wealthy taxpayers left the state, but they gained over $1 billion in revenue from the tax increase. All the while, their unemployment rate stayed at or below the national average.


----------



## orb451 (Mar 1, 2011)

I think this is from the report you mentioned:

link (PDF):
http://www.itepnet.org/pdf/MD_Millionaires.pdf


_Of course, attempting to make definitive statements about changes in the number of taxpayers in certain income ranges at this stage of the tax
collection process is folly. As Comptroller Franchot himself acknowledged in his letter, tax year 2008 results are worse than anticipated, but the
implications of that shortfall wont be fully understood until the extension returns, which are typically higher-dollar returns, have been processed. The table above certainly lends support to the notion that preliminary tax return data  that is, data on returns filed prior to the October deadline for filing returns on extension  offers, at best, an incomplete picture of
trends in income levels and tax liabilities. The difference between preliminary and final data for upper-income taxpayers is especially marked. Consequently, policymakers in Maryland  including Comptroller Franchot  as well as interested observers in other states and in the
press would do well to avoid drawing conclusions from such data and to refrain from trying to apply ill-informed lessons to other tax debates._

Are you still trying to argue that increasing taxes on the rich or wealthy is a solution to out of control government spending? So if there's ways to *save* money by cutting spending, we shouldn't do that, is that what you're saying? We should just tax the people with the most money, right? And leave everything else as is?


----------



## pink freud (Mar 2, 2011)

i would like to draw everybody's attention to a detail in this video:



Now, help me here, because Botany isn't one of my strong-suits. What palm-trees are native to Wisconsin


----------



## synrgy (Mar 3, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Now, help me here, because Botany isn't one of my strong-suits. What palm-trees are native to Wisconsin



Guess they're gonna have to admit that global warming is becoming a real issue, aren't they? 

I saw that yesterday.

I suppose folks can believe whatever they want, but I contest that you can't find that level of *blatant and intentional* misinformation being pushed from any other network.

It's not the first time, either. I remember quite a few episodes of The Daily Show where they point out the exact same trick being used by Fox. "Lets go live to the scene" = "cut to stock footage of an event from 2 years ago".


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 3, 2011)

pink freud said:


> Now, help me here, because Botany isn't one of my strong-suits. What palm-trees are native to Wisconsin


 
To be fair, plenty of plants exist in places to which they aren't native. Hell, macadamias aren't native to hawaii. It would be interesting to know what palms can survive Wisconsin winters, though, native or otherwise .


----------



## kmanick (Mar 3, 2011)

pink freud said:


> i would like to draw everybody's attention to a detail in this video:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, help me here, because Botany isn't one of my strong-suits. What palm-trees are native to Wisconsin




it's unbelievable that they actually have the balls to to try and pass this off as protests in Wisconsin


----------



## Meshugger (Mar 5, 2011)

orb451 said:


> Maybe you should be looking at the monopoly the WEA Trust has on healthcare benefits for their union members. But before you look at that, look at the average salary for teachers in Wisconsin as compared to say, California for example:
> 
> Wisconsin Average Teacher Salary: $52,644 for year 2009-2010
> Not including healthcare, pension and other benefits (vacation, etc)
> ...



Yes, i agree that unions have been overstepping their boundries pretty much everywhere in the western hemisphere, but i wouldn't go as far take away collective bargaining rights or restricting the right to join a union. For a truly free society to work, they have to exist and use their collective rights to bargain with the employee. 

If we are pushing for a free market, then they are more necessary than before.


----------



## Randy (Mar 5, 2011)

Meshugger said:


> Yes, i agree that unions have been overstepping their boundries pretty much everywhere in the western hemisphere, but i wouldn't go as far take away collective bargaining rights or restricting the right to join a union. For a truly free society to work, they have to exist and use their collective rights to bargain with the employee.
> 
> If we are pushing for a free market, then they are more necessary than before.



Yes yes yes and yes.


----------

