Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:16 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:


Well, your first sentence proves my point. Leaving aside that this crisis was a result of government intervention into housing markets going, at least, back to Carter area legislation like the CRA and the Clinton admin doubling down on ACORN like community 'activism', while seeing Frank/Dodd legislation being passed that forced the two FMs ( Fannie, Freddie) to significantly increase their exposure to subprimes, we must ask why did citizens elect Obama if not to clean up the 'Bush/GOP Mess'?


This is 100% bullshit and you are a fool if you believe it's true. The financial crash had nothing to do with the CRA or ACORN - at all. And you're deeply confused about the rest of it as well.

I'd ask you to substantiate any of this with actual evidence, but you've never done so in the past, so why would I expect it now? I would be shocked if you could produce anything even resembling a cohesive narrative as to how a housing market crash sunk every one of our largest banks and investment houses, and then explain to us what the CRA had to do with that.

You've bought into the narrative of lies deeper and more completely than just about anyone on this site, other than maybe Okie or Ican. Which is a little sad, because you just don't seem as dumb as them.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It seems like JM is singing the same song as most conservatives on these boards. Can we assume they get their information from the same source?

What is more interesting is the simple fact that most of the reasons arrived at by many expert economists were presented here on a2k, but that seems missed by these same folks who still blame fannie and freddie with the Great Recession. Interesting.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
JamesMorrison
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:45 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
A Capitol staffer who asked not to be named said most Capitol insiders agree that predictions of a drop of about $900 million in state aid to K12 public schools as well as permitted revenue limits of negative $500 per student are probably correct. The drop in both state aid and the reduction in revenue limits per student is without precedent. In the past, revenue limits per student have annually increased by about $200 each year.
In Milwaukee, school district officials have heard that the governor is also considering refusing federal Title 1 funds aimed at helping poor children in state schools. For this school year, Milwaukee has received almost $77.5 million in Title 1 funding. The possibility that the governor is considering rejecting the federal money created quite a ruckus in Milwaukee when it was suggested by Milwaukee's School Board President Michael Bond earlier this week and reported here by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/education/blog/article_80ad54c2-4089-11e0-88b3-001cc4c03286.html


I think that these localities are being quite responsible regarding the layoffs. I understand any such actions require (by way of union agreements) a specified time of 2-3 months whereby those being laid off are notified before hand, a quite reasonable state of affairs.

The article does seem to have a slight bias for the union side but, more importantly, it doesn't mention any strings that might be attached to the federal monies in question that the state receives. It is possible there are none, but this article is uninformative regarding this concern. Whether federal highway funds or stimulus it is common that this type of federal funding comes with strings (Obama's stimulus mandated increased state welfare roles while supplying only a few years worth of funds while leaving the states in the lurch for future increased welfare roles in perpetuity). We should make sure this is not the case before damning Gov. Walker for not taking 'Free Money'.

JM
parados
 
  5  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:45 pm
@JamesMorrison,
It's nice to know you live a rich fantasy life JM.
Quote:
Leaving aside that this crisis was a result of government intervention into housing markets going, at least, back to Carter area legislation like the CRA and the Clinton admin doubling down on ACORN like community 'activism', while seeing Frank/Dodd legislation being passed that forced the two FMs ( Fannie, Freddie) to significantly increase their exposure to subprimes, we must ask why did citizens elect Obama if not to clean up the 'Bush/GOP Mess'?


It's too bad that the economy is based in reality. The CRA had nothing to do with the current housing crisis. It was lack of government regulation that allowed the mortgage crisis and not too much government intervention. I'm curious which Frank/Dodd legislation you are referring to. Since the GOP controlled the House from 1995- 2007 when did Frank author any legislation that the GOP was willing pass?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 06:54 pm
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:
We should make sure this is not the case before damning Gov. Walker for not taking 'Free Money'.
True, because if by not taking this money the state is no longer obligated to follow the provisions of what ever "no child left behind" is called now then the state could cut a lot of positions. Teachers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to school labor now, as the number of support positions has exploded. The state might also be able to avoid all of the costs of Tittle X or what ever the law is that says that girls sports must have the same number of events as the boys no matter what the cost/interest/value equation result is.

Taking money from Uncle Sam tends to carry lots of obligations, a feeling that any kid who has been subjected to parents who try to control their decisions through checks and cash is well familiar with. Sometimes we need to walk away and not take it....need to declare our independence.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:13 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Of course all of this gives a new meaning to the "collective bargaining rights" mantra endlessly reported by union hacks. There are no such rights.


Wow - you really believe this? I think that if you examined the underpinning of collective bargaining - the right of citizens to self-assemble - you'd reconsider your position, as it is a natural and inevitable extension of that right.

You know who disagreed completely with your position? Ronald Reagan. He famously referred to Unionism and the right to belong to a trade union as "one of Humanity's most elemental rights."

Your screeds on this matter represent the most one-sided accounts of Unionism possible. I don't think we could have better avatar of the Management Position possible here at A2K.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are a bit confused by all the propaganda you consume. Alternatively, perhaps the problem is merely that you don't understand the facts.

Collective bargaining, as unions use the term, is NOT a derivative of the right of assembly. Unions don't want workers in organized industries to be able to choose to do without the union - they are champions of their right to lead assemblies of represented workers, but stoutly oppose any choice on the part of the workers themselves: they insist on a legally sanctioned monopoly - and there is no such right for anyone in this country.

The labor unions have declared the legislation passed by the Assembly in Wisconsin to be "an assault on their collective bargaining rights". This is a flawed and deceptive statement on several levels. Firstly the draft law in Wisconsin limits their rights to bargain over the work rules affecting state employees, but leaves intact significant negotiating rights on pay and benefits - something explicitly prohibited in Federal law governing unions representing Federal employees. That still leaves unions with significantly more bargaining power with the state of Wisconsin than does Federal law governing unions representing employees of the Federal government ! Do you also argue that the Federal government denies unions the "collective bargaining rights" of labor unions? Finally it is simply a fact that the status of labor unions in representing employees, and the limits of their powers and the employers mandated response are defined and established by Federal and state laws. They are absolutely NOT fundamental rights that stand above the law such as freedom of assembly or freedom of speech.

In fact what labor unions call collective bargaining rights involves a good deal of supressi0n of individual rights. Listen to some of their rhetoric about recent initiatives to extend right to work laws beyond the 22 states that currently have them. Their rhetoric is all about the supposed suppression of collective bargaining - however that is a lie. These laws put unions on the exactly same footing vis-a-vis employers in terms of both initial union organizing and collective bargaining as in states without these laws, restricting the unions only in one instance -- they can't require union membership as a precondition of employment by an individual worker, and they can't force employees to become members of the unions. Now I ask you a direct question - are right to work laws more or less protective of individual freedom than laws requiring membership in a union as a precondition to employment?

I agree fully with Reagan that no one should be prevented from joining a union if he/she wishes to do so - and that no one should be compelled to join a union either. Everyone should have the right to do as they wish on all such questions related to the choice of venue for such assemblys . THAT IS a derived element of the right of assembly.

Freedom means the freedom to do something and the freedom not to do it. Organized labor opposes individual freedom.
parados
 
  6  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Unions don't want workers in organized industries to be able to choose to do without the union - they are champions of their right to lead assemblies of represented workers, but stoutly oppose any choice on the part of the workers themselves: they insist on a legally sanctioned monopoly - and there is no such right for anyone in this country.

Again, not true george. Unions are democratic. They can't force a majority to act according to the will of the minority. Any group of employees is free to vote to decertify a union that represents it. It only requires a majority vote to decertify the union.


Quote:
Firstly the draft law in Wisconsin limits their rights to bargain over the work rules affecting state employees, but leaves intact significant negotiating rights on pay and benefits -

This statement is patently false and I already posted the wording from the law that shows it to be false. But then you consider it "niggling" when I point out your lies.
The proposed law says THIS..
Quote:
This bill limits the right to collectively bargain for all
employees who are not public safety employees (general employees) to the subject of
base wages.

and THIS ..
Quote:
Under current law, University of Wisconsin (UW) System employees,
employees of the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and certain home care and
child care providers have the right to collectively bargain over wages, hours, and
conditions of employment. This bill eliminates the rights of these employees to
collectively bargain.




Why do you persist in lying about what is in the law george?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:35 pm
@parados,
The fact is I don't follow your posts very closly.

Why do you persist in evading obvious facts and distorting the questions you presume to answer. You are deliberately deceptive on multiple levels, and you exhibit gross hypocrisy in proclaiming the relevance of the unrelated factoids you present as answers.

As I noted Federal law proivides unions representing federal emmployees NO rights to engage in collective bargaining about ANY elements of compensation ... NONE, ZILCH ! The draft Wisconsin law is not nearly as restrictive as that.

No one accused the Unions of being undemocratic in their internal workings. That is a straw man of your own invention. The fact remains that unions regard any provision in the law preserving the individual right of an employee or potential employee to forego union membership itself as an assault on collective bargaining.

What unions really mean by "free collective bargaining rights" is in fact a coersive legal formula that gives them exclusive monopolistic rights on a portion of worker salaries and the right to speak for them.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 07:48 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Lots of confusion on these points. The Wisconsin law under such scrutiny would indeed limit the bargaining power of public employee unions in negotiating work rules only - but would leave the rest intact. Given that the employer in this case is the government, it appears that what the union wants with respect to work practices is by definition an intrusion on the rights and responsibilities of officials elected by the people - at least that is the case put forward by the Governor. Beyond that there is nothing in the law that would remove the so called "collective bargaining rights of the public employee unions or their members - notwithstanding their loudly voiced claims to the contrary.

Since the unions in Wisconsin can currently bargain for vacation and benefits but the proposed law removes that from their power, your statement is false. Arguing that I am exhibiting gross hypocrisy doesn't make your statement true. I didn't distort your statement. You clearly made it. Your statement is clearly false.

http://nxt.legis.wisconsin.gov/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=WI:Default&d=billhist&jd=top


Quote:
they are champions of their right to lead assemblies of represented workers, but stoutly oppose any choice on the part of the workers themselves: they insist on a legally sanctioned monopoly
Perhaps you can explain the statement of yours george. How can a union oppose any choice on the part of the workers if the workers can decertify the union? Individuals in a democracy don't have choice the same way members of unions don't have choice. The truth is that workers do have a choice. Unless of course we concede that citizens of Wisconsin don't have a choice because they are forced to live under the monopoly of Wisconsin government. They can't opt out of it any more than workers can in a union shop.
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:01 pm
@parados,
Would you call a nation that appointed its legislators for life, but had very infrequently used procedures for unseating them ... a democracy?

You have continued to evade the issue of compulsory union membership and paying of dues as a precondition of employment. Is that democratic?
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:07 pm
@georgeob1,
You've evaded that if people wanted to, they can break the union. Under your narrative, they want to, but can't. They very much can.

A
R
T
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:18 pm
@georgeob1,
You may be correct in my opinion on some of your thinking!
But not all!
If you are seemlier to me you listen to Neil, Rush and Shawn but I do have to add that I also study all other news sources from around the world.

I once heard that the smallest government would end up being the largest, I also think that this applies to unions! I could be wrong but in my country they address it at times as the state of the union!

Politics in my opinion will fade and the scientific method will take over! Do not get me wrong because even though I think we may evolve to the scientific method I do think that politics will never fade! Because we will always have things that we will not be able to answered by the science at the time!
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:18 pm
@failures art,
You are wrong. No evasion at all. I merely made the distinction between democratic scheduled elections to retain or replace legislators (or unions) with relatively infrequently used to unseat those with appolintments for life. Nowhere did I say or imply that unions can't be decertified. It is simply a fact that it rarely happens - there is often a good deal of intimidation on the part of an incumbent union towards its members.

Do you call that an evasion ? I don't.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:22 pm
@reasoning logic,
I don't know who "Neil" is and I don't watch or listen to the other two. I am happy to learn that you inquire into many sources.

I'll note merely that I am well-read, educated and have a great deal of experience managing large organizations and dealing with Labor unions.

Frankly I can't understand the meaning of the rest of your post
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:26 pm
@georgeob1,
And which union appoints it's leaders for life? Perhaps you can show us the bylaws for the union that does that because I know of no union that appoints any legislators for life. Some of them may hold office for a long time being elected over and over but that isn't an appointment for life.

We have Senators in the US that have held office for over 40 years. Does that mean the US isn't a democracy? Or are you just making up stuff about unions that you know doesn't apply to other entities that have the same rules?
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:27 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You are wrong. No evasion at all. I merely made the distinction between democratic scheduled elections to retain or replace legislators (or unions) with relatively infrequently used to unseat those with appolintments for life. Nowhere did I say or imply that unions can't be decertified. It is simply a fact that it rarely happens. Do you call that an evasion ? iIdon't.

Then imagine the absurdity of your claim. It's akin to saying that the US Constitution must be re-ratified every year. You're making awful analogies.

A
R
T
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:32 pm
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Then imagine the absurdity of your claim. It's akin to saying that the US Constitution must be re-ratified every year. You're making awful analogies.


Do you believe the election of a New House of Representatives every two years, senators every six years and a new president every four are also absurdities?

Even in Wisconsin they have scheduled reelections for state representatives and the governor. They don't appoint them for life and wait for an impeachment.

Do you think that a rare movement among the union member employees of a company to get a petition signed to qualify for a recertification election for the union migh not expose the organizers of the effort to some intimidation on the part of the union.

You are engaging in absurdities and nonsense here, not me.

Your selection of analogies is also seriously flawed.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:36 pm
@georgeob1,
Thank you for all of your responses as they do give me hope in the scientific method!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 08:37 pm
@georgeob1,
The only absurdity here is you george. You made claims about the Wisconsin law that were false.
You have now claimed that unions appoint people to office for life and can't seem to provide any instance to support your claim.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/14/2019 at 11:30:02