Obama '08?

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, the true valid logical and factual argument is simple.

The State of Wisconsin can no longer support the exhorbitant costs 0f the Wisconsin teacher's union contracts. The government of the State of Wisconsin must reduce these costs as well as their other costs in order to balance their budget. Failure to balance their budget will force them to raise tax rates, reduce their revenue, and declare bankruptcy. Or, they can simply declare bankruptsy. Either way, if they declare bankruptsy, then all state contracts will become null and void.

The government of the State of Wisconsin offered the Wisconsin teacher's union a specific recommendation for cutting state education costs. The state teacher's union rejected that recommendation and insisted that their current contracts be obeyed.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

This is getting a little ... strange. The issues in dispute - including your preemptory denial are fairly clearly encapsulated in your posted excerpts above. I offered an opinion and you countered with a contrary opinion, but no proof or argument, .... and then, in an increasingly familiar way, castigated me for offering no proof - in efect for doing exactly whay you did in response.

Oh, so when you say 'it is clear that increasing groups of Americans....' you mean 'This is my opinion, but there's no data to support it.' Which is exactly what I said.

I don't have to provide proof that you haven't presented any data to support your opinion; your own posts provide that proof, because... there's never any data in them.

Quote:

Moreover, this is clearly an issue involving future events for which the best one can do is pile on indicators in support of, or denying, a particular conjecture. proof is not possible because the future is not known.

Okay, great! What factors lead you to your conclusion? Specifically.

Additionally, you weren't projecting about the future but instead describing a trend which presently exists. One would think you would be able to show some evidence of that trend.

Quote:

The issue of right to work laws in various states has lain dormant for four decades, and now it is back on the tablke in several states. Issues concerning limitations to the negotiating rights of public employees are also on the table in several states, and that number is likely to grow.

I don't disagree with this, but it's not because of the reasons you posit. Instead, it's a feature of an increasingly Conservative Republican party. In 2006 and 2008 you got your asses kicked so bad that the core of Conservatives who were left were much farther to the right than previously. The Republicans doubled-down on their base and leveraged both their anger and the inability for many to accept Obama's presidency (for a variety of reasons, savory or not) into a very successful midterm election.

Now we are seeing many of these new State legislatures and Governors begin to attempt to express their new power. And it's their right to do so. But it's not an indicator of a shift in public opinion to where majorities support or believe in the things you posit. You attempt to conflate these things all the time, but that's a lazy and simplistic way to look at the situation.

Quote:

Democrat legislators in Wisconsin have fled the state in a desperate attempt to delay action on long overdue adjustments to the compensation of state employees. In the face of all this you blandly assert that all this will backfire on the governor. Given the prevailing private sector unemployment in Wisconsin, the budget deficit faced by this state, and its already high level of taxation, I find your assertions to be something less than intuitively obvious.

I'm confident in my opinion because it's one based on facts:

1, as I showed in my last post, polling in WI shows that the majority of citizens don't back the gov's plan. At all.

2, the unions in question aren't fighting about the compensation, they are fighting about Walker's attempt to remove their right to collectively bargain about workplace issues other than direct pay. They are fighting about his attempt to make the union re-certify itself EVERY YEAR with expensive elections.

It's an assault on their basic right to self-organize and an attempt to get rid of the unions.

If you don't believe me, witness the fact that this is the exact position that the heads of the union have taken -

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a05349be-3be1-11e0-b0a1-001cc4c002e0.html

I'm confident and assured in my positions and in this discussion because I've done actual research into the matter. I spend hours and hours reading about this and every other topic I discuss in depth here at A2K. Probably 3-5 hours a day studying politics, economics, and various social issues. I go looking for facts and documentation BEFORE I write posts, just so I can be sure to have something to point to when questioned. So yeah; ask away, about anything.

You are the exact opposite. You don't do any of that, and therefore get angry and upset when people demand for you to back up what you say. What is it you want? That we all just nod and scratch our chins when you make pronouncements, as if you are some sort of wise sage that we should be listening to? You need to get serious about your dedication to providing logical and well-researched arguments here if you want to try to hang with those of us who do.

You of course could provide a snarky and defensive answer about not caring about my opinion on these matters, and that's fine. But I'm going to keep pointing out your evidence-free assertions, because I simply cannot sit back and watch an intelligent person casually lie and project in this fashion.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

That is true even in California where Brown is planning on asking Californians to vote on government worker pensions. Even union workers are going to find that voters are angry that pension costs are reducing other public services - not only statewide, but by counties and cities. Many workers do not have the same benefits, and demanding the continuation of those pensions while everything else gets cut is not realistic. Especially since they work less years to gain better retirement benefits at taxpayer expense.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, the true valid logical and factual argument is simple.

The State of Wisconsin can no longer support the exhorbitant costs 0f the Wisconsin teacher's union contracts. The government of the State of Wisconsin must reduce these costs as well as their other costs in order to balance their budget. Failure to balance their budget will force them to raise tax rates, reduce their revenue, and declare bankruptcy. Or, they can simply declare bankruptsy. Either way, if they declare bankruptsy, then all state contracts will become null and void.

The government of the State of Wisconsin offered the Wisconsin teacher's union a specific recommendation for cutting state education costs. The state teacher's union rejected that recommendation and insisted that their current contracts be obeyed.

This is a 100% lie. The argument isn't about the pay concessions but instead about the removal of future rights to collectively bargain and the imposition of onerous requirements that are specifically designed to lead to the end of the employee unions.

Both Walker and the rest of you Republicans have been consistently dishonest on this topic. It's not a fiscal issue. It is an ideological one.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

The First Amendment requires assembly be peaceable, and it also does not give them a right to obstruct or interfere with the rights of others, due process of law, and orderly carrying out of the peoples business.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

That is true even in California where Brown is planning on asking Californians to vote on government worker pensions. Even union workers are going to find that voters are angry that pension costs are reducing other public services - not only statewide, but by counties and cities. Many workers do not have the same benefits, and demanding the continuation of those pensions while everything else gets cut is not realistic. Especially since they work less years to gain better retirement benefits at taxpayer expense.

Great point. So, why haven't we seen a big backlash by local labor or by national labor organizations on this matter?

Because the right for the unions to exist isn't under question here. Brown isn't trying to de-certify or remove the rights of the unions to bargain. That's more important than cuts to pensions or paying more for health insurance.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a 100% lie. The argument isn't about the pay concessions but instead about the removal of future rights to collectively bargain and the imposition of onerous requirements that are specifically designed to lead to the end of the employee unions.

Both Walker and the rest of you Republicans have been consistently dishonest on this topic. It's not a fiscal issue. It is an ideological one.

Cycloptichorn

I believe it is you who is being deceptive here. Of course the argument is about ending the unnecessary and obviously harmful, recent era of unionized public employees. There is no intrinsic right of government employees to demand that government negotiate with unions they may form. Indeed this is a fairly recent widespread phenomenon in our country. The government financial crisis at hand is, in major part, driven by exhorbitant pay and benefit packages for public employees created by a harmful (to the public interest) collusion of public service unions and Democrat legislators in their pay. The public in increasing numbers has determined that it is time to end both the current symptoms and the underlying problem.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a 100% lie. The argument isn't about the pay concessions but instead about the removal of future rights to collectively bargain and the imposition of onerous requirements that are specifically designed to lead to the end of the employee unions.

Both Walker and the rest of you Republicans have been consistently dishonest on this topic. It's not a fiscal issue. It is an ideological one.

Cycloptichorn

I believe it is you who is being deceptive here. Of course the argument is about ending the unnecessary and obviously harmful, recent era of unionized public employees.

I contend that it is not in fact harmful at all. This is an assertion on your part.

Quote:

There is no intrinsic right of government employees to demand that government negotiate with unions they may form. Indeed this is a fairly recent widespread phenomenon in our country.

Only if you mean in the last 50 years. That's longer than I've been alive.

The Constitution does guarantee the right for citizens to self-assemble. This is what unions are. Interactions between Unions and the various governments they work with are a matter between management and labor just like they are in the private sector.

Quote:

The government financial crisis at hand is, in major part, driven by exhorbitant pay and benefit packages for public employees created by a harmful (to the public interest) collusion of public service unions and Democrat legislators in their pay.

Substitute 'Corporation' and 'Republican' in there and you'd have an equally good, if still perjorative, statement.

Quote:

The public in increasing numbers has determined that it is time to end both the current symptoms and the underlying problem.

This is an evidence-free assertion on your part, which is a nice way of saying: put up or shut up.

ONE of us has posted any sort of evidence to back up their position in this thread, and that's me. You have nothing but your opinion. Polling shows that the majority of people in the state involved do not share your opinion. You had no answer to this so you just glossed over that part as if it didn't exist.

In the absence of actual evidence to support your position your assertions are meaningless and should be ignored by everyone. It's just one old guy's opinion.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

The public in increasing numbers has determined that it is time to end both the current symptoms and the underlying problem.

Exactly right. It is summed up by the following quote from the excellent article in the link I provide below. It essentially boils down to who calls the shots, the taxpayers or the government employees? If we the people lose that battle, we have lost our country.

"The central battle in our time is over political primacy. It is a competition between the public sector and the private sector over who defines the work and the institutions that make a nation thrive and grow."
http://therightfieldline.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfks-unionization-of-federal-work-force.html

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm confident and assured in my positions and in this discussion because I've done actual research into the matter. I spend hours and hours reading about this and every other topic I discuss in depth here at A2K. Probably 3-5 hours a day studying politics, economics, and various social issues. I go looking for facts and documentation BEFORE I write posts, just so I can be sure to have something to point to when questioned. So yeah; ask away, about anything.

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, the true valid logical and factual argument is simple.

The State of Wisconsin can no longer support the exhorbitant costs 0f the Wisconsin teacher's union contracts. The government of the State of Wisconsin must reduce these costs as well as their other costs in order to balance their budget. Failure to balance their budget will force them to raise tax rates, reduce their revenue, and declare bankruptcy. Or, they can simply declare bankruptsy. Either way, if they declare bankruptsy, then all state contracts will become null and void.

The government of the State of Wisconsin offered the Wisconsin teacher's union a specific recommendation for cutting state education costs. The state teacher's union rejected that recommendation and insisted that their current contracts be obeyed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a 100% lie. The argument isn't about the pay concessions but instead about the removal of future rights to collectively bargain and the imposition of onerous requirements that are specifically designed to lead to the end of the employee unions.

You again fail to support either of your claims with valid evidence.

Your claim to have studied a subject many hours is not evidence that what you claim you have learned from those studies is valid.

Your claim that what I posted is a lie is not evidence that what I posted is a lie.

The government of the State of Wisconsin offered a compromise. The teacher's unions of the state of Wisconsin did in fact reject that offer.

Reducing future collective bargaining rights of the teachers is fundamentally about reducing the teacher union's power to force Wisconsin taxpayers to pay the average teacher far more than what average taxpayer's earn.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

This is about who runs the asylum, ican, the inmates or the owners. The owners are us, the taxpayers. I think this mess in Wisconsin highlights why the Tea Party has grown so rapidly from the grassroots. The question is, will the union thugs do what is right for the country and for the people, or will they try to maintain their power in conjunction with an overbearing Democratic Party?

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

This is about who runs the asylum, ican, the inmates or the owners. The owners are us, the taxpayers. I think this mess in Wisconsin highlights why the Tea Party has grown so rapidly from the grassroots. The question is, will the union thugs do what is right for the country and for the people, or will they try to maintain their power in conjunction with an overbearing Democratic Party?

Like I said above - this is an ideological issue, plain and simple. You guys see union members as scum and you want them out of business. It has very little to do with money or any real financial crisis.

You guys just can't stand the idea of workers having a say in their job or conditions, can ya? I think that the idea that control does not always reside with those with the most money is a scary idea for Republicans, because it runs entirely counter to their belief as to how the world should work. When you glorify wealth and greed, having to put up with the demands of those you consider to be - truthfully - lesser people, lesser citizens, must be infuriating.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
This is about who runs the asylum, ican, the inmates or the owners. The owners are us, the taxpayers. I think this mess in Wisconsin highlights why the Tea Party has grown so rapidly from the grassroots. The question is, will the union thugs do what is right for the country and for the people, or will they try to maintain their power in conjunction with an overbearing Democratic Party?
Like I said above - this is an ideological issue, plain and simple.

It is ideological, and as I said, it involves who runs the country, the taxpayers and their lawfully elected representatives, or is it the unions and the government bureaucracies? Very basic concept.

Quote:

You guys see union members as scum and you want them out of business. It has very little to do with money or any real financial crisis.

I do not see them as scum. I have friends that are members, because it is virtually required of them to do the government work they do. I see the unions as having counter purposes to us, the taxpayers, and if they become too selfish, somebody has to give. They do not deserve to bankrupt our government. It is in fact about money. Many governments are on the edge of insolvency.

Quote:

You guys just can't stand the idea of workers having a say in their job or conditions, can ya? I think that the idea that control does not always reside with those with the most money is a scary idea for Republicans, because it runs entirely counter to their belief as to how the world should work. When you glorify wealth and greed, having to put up with the demands of those you consider to be - truthfully - lesser people, lesser citizens, must be infuriating.
Cycloptichorn

They can have input, but they should no way be the people that manage our business, the peoples business and government. True to form, whenever a liberal cannot win an argument based upon merit, you start throwing out the demagoguery, using the term, "greed." I ask you, is it greed when unions kill the economy and bankrupt governments by demanding higher and higher wages and benefits.
In summary, cyclops, your side of the spectrum will have to lose, just as it always has in history. Collectivism has always failed as an economic philosophy. Face it.

2 Replies

Quote:

Rather than negotiate with public employee Unions to address budget
issues in Wisconsin, Governor Walker (WALK-ER) has proposed a number of
changes that would directly affect many public employees in Wisconsin.
With the exception of police and firefighters, all state, county and
municipal employees including teachers will be asked to contribute
greater amounts to help pay for health care and retirement benefits
which would be in effect a pay reduction of around 9%.

How would you characterize your feelings about this portion of the
proposal?

Would you say:

Tot/Ans %/Ans
1. I fully support Walker's proposal - 33.7%
2. I think that public employees should pay more of the costs of their health care and retirement, but I think this proposal goes too far. - 26.6%
3. I oppose Walker's proposal and believe it is an attack on Unions and Wisconsin workers. - 35.2
4. Not sure 4.5

http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/BSW_POLL_PRESS_RELEASE_FEB_17___2011.pdf

That poll doesn't say anything at all about removing their rights to unionize - which is basically what Walker is attempting to do - and people are still mostly against it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
This is about who runs the asylum, ican, the inmates or the owners. The owners are us, the taxpayers. I think this mess in Wisconsin highlights why the Tea Party has grown so rapidly from the grassroots. The question is, will the union thugs do what is right for the country and for the people, or will they try to maintain their power in conjunction with an overbearing Democratic Party?
Like I said above - this is an ideological issue, plain and simple.
It is ideological, and as I said, it involves who runs the country, the taxpayers and their lawfully elected representatives, or is it the unions and the government bureaucracies? Very basic concept.

Yeah, but Walker isn't framing this as an ideological issue. He's framing it as a FINANCIAL CRISIS. He has used those specific words over and over again. So have many Republicans in the national media. It is fundamentally dishonest to do so and unsupportable.

I applaud the fact that you have the honesty to come out and say it, actually, Okie, even though I disagree with you.

Quote:

Quote:
You guys see union members as scum and you want them out of business. It has very little to do with money or any real financial crisis.
I do not see them as scum. I have friends that are members, because it is virtually required of them to do the government work they do. I see the unions as having counter purposes to us, the taxpayers, and if they become too selfish, somebody has to give. They do not deserve to bankrupt our government. It is in fact about money. Many governments are on the edge of insolvency.

The unions serve a purpose - to protect government workers from a situation in which the management, and the philosophy of that management, shifts dramatically every few years.

Imagine if you were running a business and every 4 or 8 years a new group of leadership came in who had drastically different ideas of how things should be ran than the old group. The new guys want to cut the workforce in half. Then the crop after that want to double the workforce and the services provided. Then the ones after that want to change the whole management structure. The ones after that are kicked out of office halfway and all the plans you were working on are wrecked. The ones after THAT want to eliminate your whole group!

You can't manage programs over the years effectively with such a schizophrenic group of managers. Any private industry ran in this way would likely fail quickly. The point of the Union is to ensure that the workers can have a sense of continuity in their jobs and aren't subject to the callous whims of an electorate who puts drastically different people in charge all the time. Many public works projects take YEARS to accomplish their goals (or the goals are on-going) and major disruptions would wreck the whole thing. And not just programs you don't like...

Quote:

Quote:
You guys just can't stand the idea of workers having a say in their job or conditions, can ya? I think that the idea that control does not always reside with those with the most money is a scary idea for Republicans, because it runs entirely counter to their belief as to how the world should work. When you glorify wealth and greed, having to put up with the demands of those you consider to be - truthfully - lesser people, lesser citizens, must be infuriating.
Cycloptichorn
They can have input, but they should no way be the people that manage our business, the peoples business and government.

Good, but they DON'T manage the business or government. In any way. Elected officials do that.

Quote:

True to form, whenever a liberal cannot win an argument based upon merit, you start throwing out the demagoguery, using the term, "greed." I ask you, is it greed when unions kill the economy and bankrupt governments by demanding higher and higher wages and benefits.

Is it greed when corporations demand lower regulations, no matter the effects upon the economy or the environment?

Is it greed when citizens such as yourself constantly demand lower and lower taxes, no matter the effects upon the country?

There's no difference between their demands, your demands, and the demands of your political allies. But you categorize their demands as venal while yours are natural. That's a false dichotomy.

Quote:

In summary, cyclops, your side of the spectrum will have to lose, just as it always has in history. Collectivism has always failed as an economic philosophy. Face it.

Quite the contrary. America has a long tradition of mixing elements of both competition and cooperation. It has served us well and will continue to do so in the future.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

The strikers in Wisconsin simply want to preserve their First Amendment rights.

Bullshit!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The Constitution does guarantee the right for citizens to self-assemble. This is what unions are. Interactions between Unions and the various governments they work with are a matter between management and labor just like they are in the private sector.

[Cycloptichorn

You are again being deceptive. There is no inherent right for public sector unions to demand a government sanctioned monopoly on representing their workers. Indeed such unions were outlawed by most states for many years. The authority to negotiate with federal employee unions was given to federal Departments only under President Kennedy. In California it wasn't until the first incarnation of Gov. Jerry Brown that widespread public unions infected the state. The Federal government and the states have nearly unlimited rights to reject demands for collective bargaining by public service union leaders. In the current circumstances increasing numbers of state governments are opting to challenge the control these parasitic public sector unions have gotten over public finances.

Unionism has been in decline in this country for a long time - mostly the result of the sclerotic death of the industries they dominated and helped destroy. The only sector in which unions have thrived over the past few decades have been in government - at all levels. Indeed today the majority of all union members are government employees.

Now, after decades of public acceptance, steady public sector union growth and increasing demands for salary and pension benefits well above private industry standards, the public has become aroused at this out of control demand on already overstrapped public finances. Government unions are being directly challenged in a growing number of states in a movement that, so far, appears to be gaining momentum.

Hard to tell what will eventually play out in all this, but Cyclo's bland assurances that this is merely an evil conspiracy to crush basic rights, that will surely not succeed , looks a bit like pissing into the wind. Never mind his bombastic and deceptive posturing about superior knowledge, proof and analysis. Far more posturing than substance, I will add.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Great post, George!

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Far more posturing than substance, I will add.

Any evidence or substance is infinitely better than no evidence or substance, which is what you consistently present. But, you knew that already.

If an underling of yours at work attempted to convince you of a position using the level of argumentation that you employ here, I highly doubt you would be swayed to their side. You're simply not used to being questioned in such a fashion and find it galling to have to respond to challenges to your authority. But, on the internet - you have no greater authority than anyone else.

You state that the Unions have demands which are 'well above private industry standards.' This isn't because of a dramatic rise in Union standards, but because of a dramatic decline in private industry standards. The last 30 years have seen no increase in income or benefits for those who work in private industry and in fact there has been a marked decrease in those areas thanks to inflation. Management and ownership on the other hand have seen their income and wealth increase tremendously. Much of this was done on the back of the common man. Business leaders have used their monetary influence to corrupt Republicans (and some Democrats) to allow this to happen.

Your main argument with unions seems to stem from the fact that they have resisted getting fucked over by management to a far greater degree than the common man has. Nothing about that should be surprising, as that is the entire point of their existence. It's not hard to see why you take this line - you're only forwarding the interests of yourself and your social class while doing so.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The federal government recognizes unions.

From Wiki:

Quote:

Labor unions in the United States are legally recognized as representatives of workers in many industries. The most prominent unions are among public sector employees such as teachers and police. Activity by labor unions in the United States today centers on collective bargaining over wages, benefits, and working conditions for their membership and on representing their members if management attempts to violate contract provisions. Although much smaller compared to their peak membership in the 1950s, American unions also remain an important political factor, both through mobilization of their own memberships and through coalitions with like-minded activist organizations around issues such as immigrant rights, trade policy, health care, and living wage campaigns.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know