BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 07:19 am
@Ionus,
Quote:
And when was this paid off or shall we consider it still there, but having been added to ?



With the growth of the economic since WW2 it is small change indeed whatever the amount "remaining" might be.

Second note our national debt compare to GNP was far bigger after the revolution war then now for example.

National debt is a normal part of running any nation state and had always been so.

Suggesting once more you go to the library and check out a few economic books dealing with the subject.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 07:25 am
@BillRM,
Our current national debt is nowhere near the level that placed our
national credit rating into question that is unless the GOP far right get their wish and shut down the government over the debit limit issue and thereby defaulting on our debts because we could not roll them over.


0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:08 am
@cicerone imposter,

LOL - Misspoke my ass!

“Get a little bloody:” It’s the union way
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 08:20 am
@H2O MAN,
And the comment that deadly force should be used on the protectors is the GOP way also, by that thinking.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:11 am
@BillRM,
Drunk GOP union thugs ??

Oh, billy boy ... Laughing Laughing
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:52 am
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
GOP union thugs ??

Oh, billy boy ...


In a government officer of the state of Wisconsin stating that deadly should be used on protectors.

Not union thugs but government thugs instead and there is a long long history of the government in this US using deadly force on strikers or allowing deadly force to be used on strikers by company thugs.

All a matter of public record with not question about it.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:17 am
Quote:
What's at stake in Wisconsin

What bill would do
1) Eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public workers. So while unions still could represent those workers, they would not be able to seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum.

2) Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.

3) Local police, firefighters and state troopers would retain their collective bargaining rights.


4) Public workers would have to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage. That represents an average of 8 percent increase in state employees' share of pension and health care costs.

In exchange, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs. Gov. Scott Walker has threatened to lay off up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass.

Estimated savings
$30 million by July 1 and $300 million over the next two years to address a Republican-projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall.

Background
The proposal marks a dramatic shift for Wisconsin, which in 1959 was the first to pass a comprehensive collective bargaining law for public employees and was the birthplace of the national union representing all non-federal public employees.

When voters last year elected Gov. Walker, an outspoken conservative, along with GOP majorities in both legislative chambers, it set the stage for a dramatic reversal of the state's labor history.

National significance
New Republican governors and legislatures in other states have proposed cutting back on public employee costs to reduce budget shortfalls, but Wisconsin's move appears to be the earliest and most extensive.

Source: Associated Press and Reuters


I know the talk on the street is that Walker isn't trying to strip collective bargaining from police and firemen because they supported him, but has he made any statements as to why he's excluding them from the ban on collective bargaining?
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:20 am
Prank call spills Wis. governor's stance

Left a similar link elsewhere, but anyway..

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:33 am
@H2O MAN,
A hundred years of using the government and private thugs to harm and kill union members


http://www.lutins.org/labor.html

13 January 1874
The original Tompkins Square Riot. As unemployed workers demonstrated in New York's Tompkins Square Park, a detachment of mounted police charged into the crowd, beating men, women and children indiscriminately with billy clubs and leaving hundreds of casualties in their wake. Commented Abram Duryee, the Commissioner of Police: "It was the most glorious sight I ever saw..."

21 June 1877
Ten coal-mining activists ("Molly Maguires") were hanged in Pennsylvania

14 July 1877
A general strike halted the movement of U.S. railroads. In the following days, strike riots spread across the United States. The next week, federal troops were called out to force an end to the nationwide strike. At the "Battle of the Viaduct" in Chicago, federal troops (recently returned from an Indian massacre) killed 30 workers and wounded over 100.

The Bayview Massacre also took place at this time (for more detailed information visit http://www.execpc.com/~blake/rollin~1.htm), where seven people, including one child, were killed by state militia. On 1 May 1886 about 2,000 Polish workers walked off their jobs and gathered at Saint Stanislaus Church in Milwaukee, angrily denouncing the ten hour workday. They then marched through the city, calling on other workers to join them; as a result, all but one factory was closed down as sixteen thousand protesters gathered at Rolling Mills, prompting Wisconsin Govorner Jeremiah Rusk to call the state militia. The militia camped out at the mill while workers slept in nearby fields, and on the morning of May 5th, as protesters chanted for the eight hour workday, General Treaumer ordered his men to shoot into the crowd, some of whom were carrying sticks, bricks, and scythes, leaving seven dead at the scene. The Milwaukee Journal reported that eight more would die within twenty four hours, and without hesitation added that Governor Rusk was to be commended for his quick action in the matter.

23 November 1887

The Thibodaux Massacre. The Louisiana Militia, aided by bands of "prominent citizens," shot at least 35 unarmed black sugar workers striking to gain a dollar-per-day wage, and lynched two strike leaders.

22 November 1909
The "Uprising of the 20,000." Female garment workers went on strike in New York; many were arrested. A judge told those arrested: "You are on strike against God."

2 December 1911
A Chicago "slugger," paid $50 by labor unions for every scab he "discouraged," described his job in an interview: "Oh, there ain't nothin' to it. I gets my fifty, then I goes out and finds the guy they wanna have slugged. I goes up to `im and I says to `im, `My friend, by way of meaning no harm,' and then I gives it to `im -- biff! in the mug. Nothin' to it."

20 April 1914
The "Ludlow Massacre." In an attempt to persuade strikers at Colorado's Ludlow Mine Field to return to work, company "guards," engaged by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and other mine operators and sworn into the State Militia just for the occasion, attacked a union tent camp with machine guns, then set it afire. Five men, two women and 12 children died as a result. Additional web resources are catolged at www.holtlaborlibrary.org/ludlow.html#Web%20Sites.

19 August 1916
Strikebreakers hired by the Everett Mills owner Neil Jamison attacked and beat picketing strikers in Everett, Washington. Local police watched and refused to intervene, claiming that the waterfront where the incident took place was Federal land and therefore outside their jurisdiction. (When the picketers retaliated against the strikebreakers that evening, the local police intervened, claiming that they had crossed the line of jursidiction.)

Three days later, twenty-two union men attempted to speak out at a local crossroads, but each was arrested; arrests and beatings of strikebreakers became common throughout the following months, and on 30 October vigilantes forced IWW speakers to run the gauntlet, subjecting them to whipping, tripping kicking, and impalement against a spiked cattle guard at the end of the gauntlet. In response, the IWW called for a meeting on 5 November. When the union men arrived, they were fired on; seven people were killed, 50 were wounded, and an indeterminate number wound up missing.

1934
The Electric Auto-Lite Strike. In Toledo, OH, two strikers were killed and over two hundred wounded by National Guardsmen. Some 1300 National Guard troops, including included eight rifle companies and three machine gun companies, were called in to disperse the protestors.
26 May 1937
The 'Battle of the Overpass'. Walter Reuther and a group of UAW supporters, fresh from having organized GM and Chyrsler, attempting to distribute leaflets at Gate 4 of the Ford Motor Company's River Rouge plant, and were beaten up (together with bystanders) by Ford Service Department guards.

30 May 1937
Police killed 10 and wounded 30 during the "Memorial Day Massacre" at the Republic Steel plant in Chicago.

20 April 1948
Labor leader Walter Reuther was shot and seriously wounded by would-be assassins
October 1982
A boycott was initiated by the Industrial Association of Machinists against Brown & Sharpe, a machine, precision, measuring and cutting tool manufacturer, headquartered in Rhode Island. The boycott was called after the firm refused to bargain in good faith (withdrawing previously negotiated clauses in the contract), and forced the union into an unwanted and bitter strike during which police sprayed pepper gas on some 800 IAM pickets at the company's North Kingston plant in early 1982. Three weeks later, a machinist narrowly escaped serious injury when a shot fired into the picket line hit his belt buckle. The National Labor Relations Board subsequently charged Brown & Sharpe with regressive bargaining, and of entering into negotiations with the express purpose of not reaching an agreement with the union.

Below viewing threshold (view)
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:46 am
http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker_roadmap_thumb.jpg

Quote:
Public Workers Aren't Walker's Only Target

* Jonathan Cohn
* February 22, 2011 | 11:02 am

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s budget proposal has gotten a lot of attention for what it would do to the state’s public employee unions. And rightly so. If Walker gets his way, state workers will lose virtually all power to negotiate over compensation and the unions themselves will become far weaker. As Greg Sargent noted on Monday, a Walker victory would likely embolden Republican governors in other states, many of whom are planning their own assaults on public employees.

But that’s not all Walker’s budget proposal would do. It appears that Walker also wants to weaken the state’s Medicaid program, known as Badgercare. And his proposed method for accomplishing this is eerily similar to his proposed method for emasculating the public employee unions. Rather than simply trying to reduce what the state government spends on Badgercare, Walker proposes to change the way the state government operates it, in a way that would allow him to change the program with virtually no legislative oversight.

You can read the full story in the progressive publication Cap Times. (One of its writers, Shawn Doherty, seems to be one of the very few people to have taken notice.) But here's the short and slightly simplified version, as best as I can determine based on media accounts and conversations with advocates in the state:

Under Walker’s proposal for Medicaid, his Secretary of Health could use “emergency” powers to redefine some of the program’s most basic parameters: Whom it enrolls, what premiums and co-payments in charges, etc. Normally, these sorts of decisions would require assent of the full legislature. But, according to Jon Peacock of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, under Walker’s proposal the Secretary of Health would need approval only from a joint legislative committee whose membership is heavily tilted towards the majority party. (The Center has more information about the proposal at its website.)

Because Medicaid is a federal-state partnership, federal guidelines do impose some limits on what Wisconsin could do. The state could not, for example, stop offering coverage to children. And in order for Walker’s change to take effect, I gather, the federal government would have to issue a waiver. Typically the feds issue waivers only when states show they can improve or bolster coverage, not when they are looking to weaken it. But Walker’s budget effectively puts a gun to Washington’s head: If the state doesn’t get permission to change the program in the way he wants, under Walker’s proposal, it would simply reduce Medicaid to the bare minimum permissible under federal law.

To be clear, Wisconsin's Medicaid costs really do represent a crisis right now. And in an ideal world, the federal government would help by doing what it’s done for the last two years: Provide states with temporary financial assistance, in recognition of the fact that the slow economy both increases demand for the Medicaid while reducing state resources. But make no mistake: Walker and his current Secretary of Health, Dennis Smith, have made no secret of their antipathy for Medicaid. Smith, who came to Wisconsin from the Heritage Foundation, has proposed that states withdraw from the program altogether rather than go along with expansions required under the Affordable Care Act. (I'll have more to say about the states and Medicaid sometime soon; like everything else about Medicaid, the issue is pretty complicated.)

If the assault on Badgercare succeeds, tens of thousands of needy Wisconsin residents are likely to lose access to health care. That's disturbing for its own sake. But it would be particularly sad, or at least ironic, given the program’s history. Badgercare has traditionally been among the nation’s more innovative and generous Medicaid programs—in part because Tommy Thompson, the state’s Republican governor during the 1990s, had expanded coverage in order to bolster his state’s welfare reform experiment. Thompson reasoned, correctly, that people would be more likely to leave welfare for work if it didn’t mean losing health insurance.

Thompson was a Republican who would go on to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bush. But Thompson was more of a “compassionate conservative”—somebody who showed genuine interest in helping vulnerable people, albeit through different means than liberals generally preferred. Walker is a different kind of Republican and a different kind of conservative. If he’s at all interested in what happens to his less fortunate constituents, he has yet to show it.

(Thanks to Rabbi Robert Tabak, staff chaplain at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, for alerting me to this story.)

Update: In my initial round of research, I somehow missed David Wahlberg's excellent coverage of this issue in the Wisconsin State Journal. His Sunday story outlined some of the specific change the Walker administration might try to implement:

the state could make it harder for all people to enroll in Medicaid, requiring more paperwork along with the more frequent income reviews. ... Among other steps the state could take is ending optional Medicaid services, which account for about 40 percent of costs. They include physical therapy, speech therapy, optometry services, dental care and prescription drugs.

Another possible change is limiting who can get birth control services, as Wisconsin provides free birth control pills, vasectomies and other contraceptives to more people than required. ... Yet another alternative is rationing care — ranking services and refusing to cover those deemed least necessary, as Oregon does. The Wisconsin Medical Society has proposed the model instead of removing people from Medicaid or paying doctors less.

Of course, that's assuming Walker gets the latitude he needs to impose those changes. If he doesn't? Then, under Walker's proposal, more than 50,000 people would lose coverage altogether.


http://www.tnr.com/print/blog/jonathan-cohn/83939/walker-wisconsin-public-employee-union-medicaid-cut

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:59 am
@Cycloptichorn,
You certainly are an avid consumer of this propaganda. Is this what you call research?
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:09 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You certainly are an avid consumer of this propaganda. Is this what you call research?


You just don't recognize it, because you haven't ever done any. Perusing a variety of opinions on various issues is indeed research.

I am somewhat flummoxed, I must say, by your unremitting gall on this issue. You have no standing to criticize me for presenting the research and evidence I choose, George. None.

Unless you have something meaningful to comment on regarding the above piece - say, pointing out factual or logical errors within it - why even bother to comment at all? Just labeling it 'propaganda' is more of your attempt to hand-wave away important facts that are harmful to your position. I doubt anyone here finds that compelling at all.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:27 pm
Here's a great piece, that gives the lie to the idea that Walker is any sort of 'fiscal conservative.' He doesn't give a **** about the budget at all; like other so-called Hawks on the right wing, the only things he cares about are low taxes for rich folks and businesses. Period.

Quote:
Posted at 2:33 PM ET, 02/23/2011
Wisconsin governor's -- and the GOP's -- strange 'budget discipline'
By Stephen Stromberg

Wisconsin's Republican governor, Scott Walker, says that concern over his state's relatively modest budget crisis motivates his drive to strip public-sector employees of their ability to bargain collectively. And, yet, he just decided to put Wisconsin into a fiscal strait-jacket, signing a bill Tuesday that would require a two-thirds supermajority in the state legislature or a state-wide referendum to raise a range of taxes. This is not the sign of a serious budget hawk, whatever you think of Walker's policies on public-sector unions.

If Walker believes that the state is spending too much and should cut outlays to balance its books now, fine. He won his election, and he has the votes in the legislature to pass his solution. But he's attempting to force every governor after him to choose the same course, even if future state governments face drastically different budgetary circumstances.

Politicians have incentives to lower taxes when times are good. If taxes require a two-thirds vote or a referendum to pass, it's exceptionally difficult to raise them again. Even a rump conservative opposition in the state legislature can block tax increases. A referendum, meanwhile, divorces approval of unpopular tax increases with that of any larger -- and more appealing -- budget compromise that they would undergird, stacking the deck against passage. When inevitable budget crises happen, these provisions reduce lawmakers' ability to compromise, since they don't have a full range of policy options from which to choose. State politics fossilize; Democrats see little reason to give up the spending they like if enough Republicans won't meet them anywhere close to the middle. This is what happened after a similar measure passed in California, which now lurches from one fiscal crisis to the next. Though, at least in Wisconsin, a future legislature might choose to repeal its law.

Against this cautionary history, Walker claims that the supermajority requirement will "help government operate within its means." But removing budgetary flexibility -- on either the spending or the taxing side -- is almost never a good idea, and doing so in the name of fiscal sanity is beyond daft. This isn't just a problem in Wisconsin. As Matt Miller pointed out Wednesday, it is this sort of "budget discipline" -- in which making "hard choices" means the other side's priorities suffer -- that GOP lawmakers in the House of Representatives are taking toward the federal budget. This supermajority rule or a no-new-taxes pledge might satisfy Republicans' ideological imperatives. But they're not conducive to serious budget balancing.

By Stephen Stromberg | February 23, 2011; 2:33 PM ET


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/02/wisconsin_governors_--_and_the.html

Cycloptichorn
Irishk
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:45 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If it's just a bill it won't necessarily bind 'every governor after him' to follow it will it? Couldn't the new governor just reverse it?
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:46 pm
Unions help every worker. They also influenced labor laws in the US.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/briefingpapers_bp143/
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:49 pm
@Irishk,
Irishk wrote:

If it's just a bill it won't necessarily bind 'every governor after him' to follow it will it? Couldn't the new governor just reverse it?


The legislatures would have to rescind the bill first. That would likely take a 2/3rds majority, because it would affect budget issues. Republicans know they can block that in perpetuity.

It's the same thing they did to screw CA, and it was disastrous in its' effects.

More importantly, tho - anyone who says they are concerned about budgets, but refuses to even discuss tax raises at all, is not serious about the topic.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

You just don't recognize it, because you haven't ever done any. Perusing a variety of opinions on various issues is indeed research.

I am somewhat flummoxed, I must say, by your unremitting gall on this issue. You have no standing to criticize me for presenting the research and evidence I choose, George. None.


But you don't "peruse a variety of opinions". You merely cut & paste stuff from advocacy sites. I do agree you have every right to consult and paste here whatever you choose - just don't pretend it is an objective search for the truth.

There is a difference between evidence and propaganda.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:54 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You just don't recognize it, because you haven't ever done any. Perusing a variety of opinions on various issues is indeed research.

I am somewhat flummoxed, I must say, by your unremitting gall on this issue. You have no standing to criticize me for presenting the research and evidence I choose, George. None.


But you don't "peruse a variety of opinions". You merely cut & paste stuff from advocacy sites.


You're simply incorrect. I do peruse a variety of opinions and sites; I merely post those here that I happen to agree with or think make a trenchant point.

If you like, I'd be more than happy to provide you a list of right-wing sites and opinion I read every single day on this and other political topics. Ask away.

Quote:
I do agree you have every right to consult and paste here whatever you choose - just don't pretend it is an objective search for the truth.

There is a difference between evidence and propaganda.


Why should anyone think that you know what that difference is?

I repeat: if you think the above piece was propaganda, tell us what was wrong with the facts presented within it or the logic used to form the writers' opinion. That would actually be an interesting conversation! As opposed to, well, whatever this is that you're putting forward.

Cycloptichorn
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 12:58 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
And you were there.


Unlike you and others such history did not begin yesterday,
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/23/2024 at 04:10:01