Indiana Dems go AWOL

[topher5150]

It looks like Democrats have found a new strategy to block Republican majorities from enacting anti-union legislation: fleeing the state.

Taking a page from Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin, legislators in Indiana have apparently fled the state rather than vote on an anti-union bill, a source told the Indianapolis Star on Wednesday.

And they were headed to Illinois, the same state that Wisconsin Democrats fled to last week to block a bill that would limit the collective bargaining rights of public sector unions while forcing members to contribute more to their pensions and health care plans.

In Indiana, Democrats could force so-called right-to-work legislation to miss a Tuesday procedural deadline for consideration. That bill would prohibit union representation fees from being a condition of employment.

A source told the newspaper that some Indiana Democrats might head to Kentucky. They need to avoid a state with a Republican governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to their home states.

Only three of the 40 House Democrats were in the chamber when Republican Speaker Brian Bosma tried to begin Tuesday's session, leaving it with too few members for a quorum. At the same time, hundreds of union members crowd the adjourning hallways in protest of a contentious labor bill.

Rep. Terri Austin of Anderson said her fellow Democrats were studying proposed legislation and couldn't predict when they would return. Bosma says he hadn't heard from Democratic leaders and that he wouldn't negotiate with people not doing their jobs.

The legislation has drawn strong opposition from union groups, who had several hundred members at the Statehouse for a second day after a GOP-led committee voted Monday to send the bill to the full House.

Union members watching from the House gallery and hallway outside cheered as Bosma put off House business until later Tuesday.

Bosma said he hadn't heard from Democratic leader Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, and that he wouldn't negotiate with people not doing their jobs, alluding to the deadlock in Wisconsin over labor legislation that led Senate Democrats there to leave the state.

"He's taken a page out of the Wisconsin Senate playbook apparently and is shirking the job that they were hired to do," Bosma said.

Austin said Republicans have put forth a radical agenda that will hurt families and that Democratic proposals have been rejected out of hand.

"This has become, unfortunately, one of the most partisan sessions I've ever seen in the Statehouse," she said. "We're prepared to take whatever legal steps are necessary to save this state and to save the families and the children.

Austin said Democratic legislators hadn't left the city.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...iana-house-amid-union-protests/#ixzz1Einwfts3

 

[RollinLS]

Chicago the safehaven of the left.:lol:

 

[Calabrio]

There's a deliberate and coordinated effort in place to spread this chaos around the country. "The Spirit of Wisconsin" is part of the rhetoric they are using, along with "Egypt to Wisconsin."

This day was inevitable, something would have to be done about the outrageous, unsustainable pensions and benefit packages provided public unions. And this outrage was expected as well. The union members have been manipulated and used by the union leadership and political class.

And once we finish with the unions, then we'll the government entitlements run out and those dependent and "entitled" to them will riot and create chaos as well.

Brace yourself.

 

[topher5150]

I hope the voters remember this in 2012 and vote their lazy asses out of office

 

[compshmoe]

well the only thing not mentioned here is that the unions have already agreed to the lower wages and higher insurance premiums which was supposed to be the reason behind this bill, but the Governor and republicans want unions not to have any kind of bargaining power for future legislations, so workers will have no rights and Govt can do what it wants, in other words: Germany 1939. Already the average worker gets paid 300% to 500% less than company CEO's, while companies are registering higher than average profits and paying higher than average bonuses for CEO's, workers are getting fired and the ones left are being asked to cover for the fired ones; double the work,less than half the pay, but also pay more for your insurance and medications>>>rich get richer hell, now it's rich rape poor, cause there's no more middle class, it's all poor, " let them eat cake " well we all know how that ended, but wait, no we all wont know how that ended because history books have been re-written, education budgets have been slashed, and schools are being closed>>> keep the poor dumb and working twice as hard. NICE, not even in Germany 1939.

 

[compshmoe]

we're all gonna sharecrop for corporate swine !!!!

 

[Calabrio]

I'm going to have to correct your ignorant repetition of the union lies.

The union didn't entertain the concession until AFTER they organized their shut-down of the capitol and the Democrats fled to another sight. There was no significant movement in their position until AFTER their strong arm tactics failed.

And even after the bill is signed, the public sector unions (emergency services aren't included in this bill) will still have the ability to collectively bargain their wages, however the benefit packages will not be.

The union and Democrat parties are most concerned about Gov Walker's bill because it will require that public-employee unions be recertified annually by a majority vote of all their members, not just the members that choose to vote. And it also ends the state governments practice of automatically deducting union dues from state employees. The dues are about $1,000 a year.

And if it succeeds in Wisconsin, the unions fear it'll spread to the other states that public unions have helped bankrupt.
There's a lot going on in Wisconsin right now, the teachers are just being used by the national, and increasingly international, unions.

It's interesting how you take issue with what a company's CEO makes, but you aren't interested in how much more a government employee makes compared to their private sector counterpart.

According to the department of labor, public sector employees make about 44% more than those in the private sector. 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits. In the case of Wisconsin, when you calculate benefits, those teachers are making over $85k for 9 months worth of work.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/21/w...e-a-little-more-money-than-theyre-letting-on/

And your repeated references to "Germany 1939" demonstrate that you are repeating things you don't understand.
Yes. The Nazi party did break up some trade unions.
Why? Because the unions were associated with the international communist party. I guess regarding that fact you unknowingly are pretty close to the truth. But the Nazi motivation was vastly different than those who seek to weaken PUBLIC SECTOR UNIONS in the pursuit of fiscal sanity. The Nazi's had their own brand of nationalistic socialism that they were advocating, contrasted with the internationalist flavor of the unions. The nazis were a fascist regime, they weren't supporting constitutional free market principles.

You can't have efficient collective bargaining with public unions because there is no party for the union to negotiate with. You arguably have the same people on both sides of the table. Unions and one side, and union funded or pandering politicians on the other.

Do you know how much money the public sector unions spent nationally during the 2010 elections to support Democrat candidates? $200,000,000. That's not a typo. Two hundred million dollars.

I'm no fan of FDR but I will quote him now:
"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service....A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.""
And until the 1960s, public sector unions were forbidden.

The unions are a political organization and their agenda doesn't reflect the priorities of their members. The fight in Wisconsin isn't about benefits or wages, as you've mentioned, they've already conceded those issues. It's about the unions ability to mandate people to join their group and force them to pay their dues and subsidize their politics.

It is absolutely critical for these unions to maintain this death grip on the public sector employees. The private sector union membership has been steadily falling for decades. The only growth and sustainability they see lies in the growing public sector.

Which bring us back tot he actual point, the danger of PUBLIC SECTOR unions. The states MUST renegotiate these contracts because they are bankrupt. They are unable to afford the ridiculous ponzi scheme that past generations agreed to. These union organizers negotiated deals that were clearly unsustainable. Deals that are so reckless and short sighted, Bernie Madoff would have questioned the ethics of them. For example, in New Jersey, the public sector union's pension deficit is $53.9 billion. But the retirement funds of union leadership are fully funded. This applies in most every state.

States aren't able to go bankrupt and they can't print their own money, so they must come up with a realistic solution. Renegotiate, massive lay offs, or default.

They can raise taxes but that will only make the situation worse, driving the remaining business out of the state in the pursuit of economic freedom and profit. The result will be lower revenue and higher unemployment.

 

[shagdrum]

well the only thing not mentioned here is that the unions have already agreed to the lower wages and higher insurance premiums which was supposed to be the reason behind this bill, but the Governor and republicans want unions not to have any kind of bargaining power for future legislations, so workers will have no rights and Govt can do what it wants, in other words: Germany 1939. Already the average worker gets paid 300% to 500% less than company CEO's, while companies are registering higher than average profits and paying higher than average bonuses for CEO's, workers are getting fired and the ones left are being asked to cover for the fired ones; double the work,less than half the pay, but also pay more for your insurance and medications>>>rich get richer hell, now it's rich rape poor, cause there's no more middle class, it's all poor, " let them eat cake " well we all know how that ended, but wait, no we all wont know how that ended because history books have been re-written, education budgets have been slashed, and schools are being closed>>> keep the poor dumb and working twice as hard. NICE, not even in Germany 1939.

Wow.

Can you give us more then simply ignorant talking points to back up your argument? Could you show how collective bargaining by public sector unions is somehow a "right"?

Or can you only demonize views you disagree with?

This is a debate first and foremost about principle and all I see is the pro-union side in this doing everything they can to AVOID that debate.

 

[compshmoe]

Do you know how much money the public sector unions spent nationally during the 2010 elections to support Democrat candidates? $200,000,000. That's not a typo. Two hundred million dollars.

QUOTE]

There's the facts, that's what this whole thing is about, out of the top 10 campaign fundraisers 7 groups fund the republicans, the other 3 fund democrats AND those 3 happen to be unions. If this governor was really concerned about the budget and not "kicking the can down the road" for the next generation, why is it that he's taking the $165 million that was already set aside for the May payment on the Wisconsin debt, relocating it to have money to spend in his new budget, and by doing so adding $29.5 million in debt? WHY does this bill include no bid contracts for state projects? the whole idea of bidding is to take the lowest bid to save money right? this means they choose whomever they want no matter what the cost is. How many golfing buddies are going to get richer? how many workers are gonna get poorer since they'll have no union to fight for fair wages and healthcare. Wake the hell up people, it's all about making the rich richer. If corporations want to save money, tell them to fire all the lobyist, there's 200 lobyist for every 1 congressman in D.C . Coincidence that politicians aren't helping those in need anymore and instead helping the one's with the most toys?

 

[Calabrio]

Rather than responding to my reply, you isolate a single sentence and then just repeat a nonsensical talking point, completely ignoring all other points made prior, undermining your entire union-fed lies.

But, just to be thorough, I'll walk you through his talking point as well.
You make note of the top ten campaign fundraisers, but I'm going to assume it's from opensecrets.org

ActBlue: $51 million (A PAC allowing individuals and groups to channel their progressive dollars to candidates and movements of their choosing.)

AT&T: $46 million

AFSCME: $43 million American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

National Association of Realtors: $38 million

Goldman Sachs: $33 million

American Association for Justice: $33 million (trial lawyers)

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers: $33 million

National Education Association: $32 million

Laborers Union: $30 million

Teamsters Union: $30 million

Using that list, half of these groups are unions.
And I don't think any of them are associated with the GOP.


Then you ask about why the Wisconsin governor and the $165M. I don't think you understand what is happening there.

Here's the provision of the bill:

Debt Restructuring-The bill authorizes the restructuring of principal payments in fiscal year 2010-11 on the state’s general obligation bonds. These principal repayments will be paid in future years. Since the state is required to make debt service payments by March 15th. The bill must be enacted by February 25th. To allow time to sell the refinancing bonds. This provision will reduce debt service costs by $165 million in fiscal year 2010-11. The savings will help address one-time costs to comply with the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund state Supreme Court decision and make payments under the Minnesota-Wisconsin tax reciprocity program.

This was posted yesterday:

One component of Governor Walker's budget repair bill is debt refinancing, which will save taxpayers $165 million in fiscal year 2011. According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, if Senate Democrats refuse to return to Wisconsin and cast their votes in the next day the option to refinance a portion of the state's debt will be off the table.

Along with this notice Governor Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, released the following statement:

Senate Democrats claimed they fled the state to slow down the process so the public had enough time to learn about the budget repair bill. If that was their true intention, they have been successful.

Now they have one day to return to work before the state loses out on the chance to refinance debt, saving taxpayers $165 million this fiscal year. Failure to return to work and cast their votes will lead to more painful and aggressive spending cuts in the very near future.

This is the Senate Democrats' 24 hour notice.

The next thing you threw up against the wall was the "no bid contract issue."
Apparently the bill would empower the secretary of the state Department of Administration to sell the heating and cooling plants, which primarily serve University of Wisconsin campuses, including those in Madison and Milwaukee, as well as state prisons and other facilities. At a glance, it seems like the state just wants to privatize quickly despite the lack of interest in buying them. Regardless, it has nothing to do with unions.

But to answer your question framed in ignorant class warfare rhetoric, it doesn't seem like anyone is going to get rich on this SINGLE no-bid issue.

Jeff Plale, a former Democratic state senator who was hired by the Walker administration to run the Division of State Facilities, said he didn't think a bidding process is appropriate for the sale of the heating plants. "A bid implies that there is a value in the physical asset," he said.

It's difficult to tell what kind of price they could fetch, particularly because of environmental liabilities. Several of the old coal plants are in potential violation of the Clean Air Act because they lack modern pollution controls, Plale said.

"A number of these plants have potential environmental liabilities hanging over their head. How that falls into the mix still needs to be addressed," Plale said.

I think I've demonstrated how all of your talking points were nonsense and I'm not going to dignify your class-warfare rhetoric.

 

[compshmoe]

OK, since you like talking points, find any lies in this video Rachel Maddow Show tell us what the lies are, have a nice day.

 

[04SCTLS]

Of course the Republicans want to break the public unions.
It was never a good idea for the taxpayers to let public workers unionize.
Now we see the results of what corruption brings.
Unions are for people who wouldn't do well on their own merits.
In a competative society there are winners and losers.
It's the union bosses that are the winners in the unions.
They buy democrats with tax money who then give them generous contracts
when they get elected.
There is no other side in the negotiations.
Government does not make wealth.
It would be a shame to let an opportunity to inflict mortal damage on your adversary pass by.
Now is the time to put the screws to the public service unions.
FDR the father of Social Security and the AFL CIO both said unions were incompatible with public service.
But that got corrupted by opportunists who saw a golden meal ticket.
The Wisconsin union is a racket that forces members to buy their health insurance at greatly inflated prices that line the pockets of union officials.
Collective bargaining leads to.... corruption and endless disputes over small stuff.
This is just one example of typical union corruption Walker is trying to fix.
The federal government works fine without unions so I don't see where the problem is for state public workers.
These people should be happy just to have a job.
Maybe we should start talking about clawing back the overpayments netted by the previously sleazily purchased "agreements"
with democrats who took money from people .
As it is the unions have already offered to take the cuts that a few weeks ago were not negotiable.

 

[compshmoe]

unions are so bad.....
1. unemployment compensation law= thanks to Wisconsin unions 1932
2. workers comp= once again Wisconsin unions 1911
3. 5 day work week, 8 hr days, 40 hrs a week= Wisconsin unions 1887

If we had no unions, the corporations wouldn't care how you survived after being fired, or after being hurt on the job, or if you worked 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. There would be no minimum wage, we'd work for 2 dollars a day like in countries that don't have unions. We would have no healthcare, or benefits.

Since you don't want to " dignify" my class-warfare rhetoric then don't face the facts that in 1951 the rich paid 91% in taxes and were still able to eat Caviar and drink champagne. We had money to invest and create roads, bridges and so on. NOW the poor and the middle class carry the weight while the top 2% pay the lowest taxes in the history of the U.S . The top 2% hold 27.8% of the entire country's wealth, and only get richer.Now compare that to families that are barely living by working 2 jobs, trying to pay the bills and keep the family fed and still only making $22,000 a year.That same family pays X amount in taxes but GE paid $0 in taxes in 2009, and $1.21 in 2010. Oil companies such as BP reported 4th QTR profits of $4.7 billion , and we're still paying higher and higher gas prices??? no, there's no "class-warfare", it's a mongolian cluster gang rape and we're paying for the vaseline. Rich: keep their tax cuts; poor and middle class: lose in education, healthcare and fire and police services; old and retired: pay more for healthcare and medicines, they'll just have to buy less cat food to eat on. This all sounds very familiar to me.......taxation without representation???? oh yeah, the ORIGINAL tea party, the OG's.
We're all told the rich need tax breaks so they can create new jobs, really? where and when? because it hasn't " trickled down " since we were lied to in 2000, instead, corporations close plants in the U.S and send all our jobs overseas, where it can be made cheaper and in turn they rake in more profits, I CHALLENGE anyone reading this to look in your houses and count how many things are made in the USA and how many are made overseas.Even the American flags are made in China for %@cks sake.
Top ten campaign fundraiser list came from center for responsive politics- a non-partisan group that reports on facts, not fiction.

 

[04SCTLS]

unions are so bad.....
1. unemployment compensation law= thanks to Wisconsin unions 1932
2. workers comp= once again Wisconsin unions 1911
3. 5 day work week, 8 hr days, 40 hrs a week= Wisconsin unions 1887

If we had no unions, the corporations wouldn't care how you survived after being fired, or after being hurt on the job, or if you worked 7 days a week, 12 hours a day. There would be no minimum wage, we'd work for 2 dollars a day like in countries that don't have unions. We would have no healthcare, or benefits.

Since you don't want to " dignify" my class-warfare rhetoric then don't face the facts that in 1951 the rich paid 91% in taxes and were still able to eat Caviar and drink champagne. We had money to invest and create roads, bridges and so on. NOW the poor and the middle class carry the weight while the top 2% pay the lowest taxes in the history of the U.S . The top 2% hold 27.8% of the entire country's wealth, and only get richer.Now compare that to families that are barely living by working 2 jobs, trying to pay the bills and keep the family fed and still only making $22,000 a year.That same family pays X amount in taxes but GE paid $0 in taxes in 2009, and $1.21 in 2010. Oil companies such as BP reported 4th QTR profits of $4.7 billion , and we're still paying higher and higher gas prices??? no, there's no "class-warfare", it's a mongolian cluster gang rape and we're paying for the vaseline. Rich: keep their tax cuts; poor and middle class: lose in education, healthcare and fire and police services; old and retired: pay more for healthcare and medicines, they'll just have to buy less cat food to eat on. This all sounds very familiar to me.......taxation without representation???? oh yeah, the ORIGINAL tea party, the OG's.
We're all told the rich need tax breaks so they can create new jobs, really? where and when? because it hasn't " trickled down " since we were lied to in 2000, instead, corporations close plants in the U.S and send all our jobs overseas, where it can be made cheaper and in turn they rake in more profits, I CHALLENGE anyone reading this to look in your houses and count how many things are made in the USA and how many are made overseas.Even the American flags are made in China for %@cks sake.
Top ten campaign fundraiser list came from center for responsive politics- a non-partisan group that reports on facts, not fiction.

These accomplishments you tout were established by private sector unions.
Wisconsin public unions didn't exist until 1960.
Public unions didn't have to fight for anything except less work hours more money and benefits.
I'm in the top 1% and I pay a 45% tax rate.
You think everybody who's a millionaire pays little or nothing in taxes.
I prepaid over a million in taxes 1/4ly for 2010.
I run a traditional manufacturing business with 80 employees that makes goods right here in the USA and having to pay 45% in taxes every 3 months to fund government handouts really puts a strain on expanding and creating more jobs.
We pay good money and use piece work which is anathema to unions
but is very motivating for our type of workers many who otherwise would be making minimum wage.
I like the half and half plan myself.
Send half the government workers home and keep the other better half and start over.
I'm waiting to see what actually happens when the government sends police and firemen home since the unions are always full of dire warnings.
Around here half the firemen are volunteers anyways.
Some people will do these government jobs almost for free.

 

[cammerfe]

OK, since you like talking points, find any lies in this video Rachel Maddow Show tell us what the lies are, have a nice day.

How can you tell if Rach' is lying?

Answer---Her lips are moving!!

KS

 

[shagdrum]

unions are so bad.....
1. unemployment compensation law= thanks to Wisconsin unions 1932
2. workers comp= once again Wisconsin unions 1911
3. 5 day work week, 8 hr days, 40 hrs a week= Wisconsin unions 1887

If we had no unions, the corporations wouldn't care how you survived after being fired, or after being hurt on the job, or if you worked 7 days a week, 12 hours a day.

Your argument seems to be rooted in a lot of anti-capitalist claptrap. The whole notion of corporations simply "exploiting" workers is absurd on it's face because it is logically incoherent and economically illiterate. However it does appeal to those who have more passion then reason.

Can you provide proof for all the claims you stated or are we simply to take your word on that? Your points seem premised on the discredited Marxist exploitation theory that ignores economic reality in favor of emotionally appealing platitudes.

I imagine that, for most people on this forum, your claims alone will not carry a lot of weight. It might help to provide sources for your claims.

 

[shagdrum]

OK, since you like talking points, find any lies in this video [clip of Rachel Maddow Show] tell us what the lies are, have a nice day.

Don't have time to waste on someone who has already been caught dealing in disinformation on the Wisconsin issue.

Instead of simply posturing and trying to prove that you are morally superior to all of us, can you approach this discussion with any degree of civility and reasonableness?

 

[compshmoe]

Your argument seems to be rooted in a lot of anti-capitalist claptrap. The whole notion of corporations simply "exploiting" workers is absurd on it's face because it is logically incoherent and economically illiterate. However it does appeal to those who have more passion then reason.

Can you provide proof for all the claims you stated or are we simply to take your word on that? Your points seem premised on the discredited Marxist exploitation theory that ignores economic reality in favor of emotionally appealing platitudes.

I imagine that, for most people on this forum, your claims alone will not carry a lot of weight. It might help to provide sources for your claims.

1-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits = scroll down to USA
2-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1888620/ = scroll down to WORKERS' COMPENSATION IN THE UNITED STATES 5th paragraph
3-http://www.wisbar.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=35859
4-rich vs poor = http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/03/90-tax-rate-back-to-1950s.html AND http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2011-02-07-federal-taxes_N.htm AND http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100326140829AACRxYf

There are so many more to list on rich vs poor it's easier if you just google it yourself, see I don't just watch one news ch, i watch them all, I don't vote full republican or full democrat, I vote for the best one out of the bucket of crap we're given to choose from, after all they're all politicians,this isn't a football game where you choose a team and stick with it.

With that said, face the facts republicans are financed by corporations and bussiness, their #1 priority is keeping the rich richer, yes democrats get some crumbs too but only because corporations cover their bets :85% to republicans, 15% to democrats : http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22517 AND http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php AND http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Responsive_Politics

In those list you also find out of the top 10 political contributors 7 are republican and 3 are democrat, the 3 are UNIONS which represent whom? corporations? no; workers? yes. I don't vote against myself, if you have a corporation or have millions in the bank, then there's only 1 to vote for.

Example: Republicans ran on creating new jobs, they won, 1st thing they did was keep the tax cuts for the rich, eventhough no jobs have been created since 2000 when we were told it would trickle down and yesterday the democrats were outvoted on a bill that would end $40 BILLION in subsidies to oil companies , republicans voted 100% against taking it away from oil companies, EVEN after all oil companies reported profits that added together equal $1 trillion. That's profits, after paying all their bills, all their workers, and all expenses, they have $1 trillion left over. BUT we're still getting porked at the pumps?? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-target-40-billion-in-big-oil-tax-breaks.html AND http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110302183617AAwdAw4 AND http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1788&catid=62

 

[compshmoe]

How can you tell if Rach' is lying?

Answer---Her lips are moving!!

KS

well until you research her reporting and find something she's lying about; just like Michael Moore, all you ever hear is " oh he's a liberal, oh he's lying ", but there's never anything presented to show it. In the movies I've seen he actually shows you a paper trail, posted and video tape evidence with signatures and seals and so forth, like Rachel. Don't fall for corporate run TV, watch all news, read all blogs, and research, you'll find the rich don't want you moving in their neighborhood, stay at the bottom.

 

[compshmoe]

Don't have time to waste on someone who has already been caught dealing in disinformation on the Wisconsin issue.

Instead of simply posturing and trying to prove that you are morally superior to all of us, can you approach this discussion with any degree of civility and reasonableness?

LMAO, Ummmm did you actually watch the video??? she clearly says she is " quoting Wisconsin's version of the congressional budget office " then goes on to say that "Wisconsin in fact has a $137 billion budget downfall, which coinsides with the $140 billion in tax breaks to the corporations", given by who?? no, not Obama, given by the new republican jesus, Gov. Scott Walker. Listen to the full text, don't fall for half sentences, WATCH the video, it's right there in your post. It's also good to hear this in her own words, with video to back it, like in this video : Rachel Maddow Show

 

[compshmoe]

Your argument seems to be rooted in a lot of anti-capitalist claptrap. The whole notion of corporations simply "exploiting" workers is absurd on it's face because it is logically incoherent and economically illiterate. However it does appeal to those who have more passion then reason.

Can you provide proof for all the claims you stated or are we simply to take your word on that? Your points seem premised on the discredited Marxist exploitation theory that ignores economic reality in favor of emotionally appealing platitudes.

I imagine that, for most people on this forum, your claims alone will not carry a lot of weight. It might help to provide sources for your claims.

look above

 

[compshmoe]

These accomplishments you tout were established by private sector unions.
Wisconsin public unions didn't exist until 1960.
Public unions didn't have to fight for anything except less work hours more money and benefits.
I'm in the top 1% and I pay a 45% tax rate.
You think everybody who's a millionaire pays little or nothing in taxes.
I prepaid over a million in taxes 1/4ly for 2010.
I run a traditional manufacturing business with 80 employees that makes goods right here in the USA and having to pay 45% in taxes every 3 months to fund government handouts really puts a strain on expanding and creating more jobs.
We pay good money and use piece work which is anathema to unions
but is very motivating for our type of workers many who otherwise would be making minimum wage.
I like the half and half plan myself.
Send half the government workers home and keep the other better half and start over.
I'm waiting to see what actually happens when the government sends police and firemen home since the unions are always full of dire warnings.
Around here half the firemen are volunteers anyways.
Some people will do these government jobs almost for free.

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/12/rich-get-richer-and-middle-class-stagnates/ AND http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/so_long_middle_class_GoGvE3xMnYXzZpS2OMGZsI AND YouTube - Crazy Graphs: Rich Vs Middle Class & Poor if you need more, research from ALL sources, then tell me , who has the most toys, you make more $$ you should pay more $$, not pay less taxes because you're rich, and the middle class pay more while their wages go down, because I haven't seen any millionares returning their social security checks.

PS- this attack is on ALL unions, not just Gov. workers http://neatoday.org/2011/02/23/national-attack-on-unions/ AND http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...ns-United-and-The-Attack-on-Unions-Are-Linked AND http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...Chamber-of-Commerce-Launches-Attack-on-Unions

 

[compshmoe]

Of course the Republicans want to break the public unions.
It was never a good idea for the taxpayers to let public workers unionize.
Now we see the results of what corruption brings.
Unions are for people who wouldn't do well on their own merits.
In a competative society there are winners and losers.
It's the union bosses that are the winners in the unions.
They buy democrats with tax money who then give them generous contracts
when they get elected.
There is no other side in the negotiations.
Government does not make wealth.
It would be a shame to let an opportunity to inflict mortal damage on your adversary pass by.
Now is the time to put the screws to the public service unions.
FDR the father of Social Security and the AFL CIO both said unions were incompatible with public service.
But that got corrupted by opportunists who saw a golden meal ticket.
The Wisconsin union is a racket that forces members to buy their health insurance at greatly inflated prices that line the pockets of union officials.
Collective bargaining leads to.... corruption and endless disputes over small stuff.
This is just one example of typical union corruption Walker is trying to fix.
The federal government works fine without unions so I don't see where the problem is for state public workers.
These people should be happy just to have a job.
Maybe we should start talking about clawing back the overpayments netted by the previously sleazily purchased "agreements"
with democrats who took money from people .
As it is the unions have already offered to take the cuts that a few weeks ago were not negotiable.

I didn't read that part in the constitution, that only private sector workers can unite, i read that in the China, Germany under Hittler, United arab emiretes, Napoleon's France, and Iraq under Hussein and the previous ruler....

And under FDR, he also said "Throughout the nation men and women, forgotten in the political philosophy of the Government, look to us here for guidance and for more equitable opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth... I pledge you, I pledge myself to a new deal for the American people... This is more than a political campaign. It is a call to arms"
Ummmm.....opportunity to share in the distribution of national wealth.... where have we heard that before, OH YEAH the communist Obama, that's right. Well if FDR was right about unions, then he must be right about this too. Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt under 1932 presidential election section.

 

[shagdrum]

Well if FDR was right about unions, then he must be right about this too. Look it up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt under 1932 presidential election section.

Well, FDR certainly got some things right about Unions...

...meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of pubic employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.​

FDR also signed into law the Wagner Act in 1935:

The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act...is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands. The Act does not apply to workers who are covered by the Railway Labor Act, agricultural employees, domestic employees, supervisors, federal, state or local government workers, independent contractors and some close relatives of individual employers.​

You do realize that ANYTHING you cite of FDR HAS to be interpreted in a manner consistent with his explicit actions and statements concerning public unions, right? To do otherwise is to intentionally take him out of context and distort what he said.

Also, what kind of logic is, "if FDR was right about unions, then he must be right about this too"? This is simply a sloppy and clearly dishonest attempt to put words in the mouth of 04SCTLS; to distort what he was saying.

 

[shagdrum]

LMAO, Ummmm did you actually watch the video??? she clearly says she is " quoting Wisconsin's version of the congressional budget office " then goes on to say that "Wisconsin in fact has a $137 billion budget downfall,

Apparently, you did not actually read the Politifact article:

Maddow and others making the claim all cite the same source for their information -- a Jan. 31, 2011 memo prepared by Robert Lang, the director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

It includes this line: "Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million."

We were curious about claims of a surplus based on the fiscal bureau memo.

In writing it when it was released, reporters from the Journal Sentinel and Associated Press had put the shortfall at between $78 million and $340 million. That’s the projection for the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2011.

Walker himself has settled on $137 million as the deficit figure, a number reporters have adopted as shorthand.

We re-read the fiscal bureau memo, talked to Lang, consulted reporter Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel’s Madison Bureau, read various news accounts and examined the issue in detail.

Our conclusion: Maddow and the others are wrong.

There is, indeed, a projected deficit that required attention, and Walker and GOP lawmakers did not create it.

More on that second point in a bit.

The confusion, it appears, stems from a section in Lang’s memo that -- read on its own -- does project a $121 million surplus in the state’s general fund as of June 30, 2011.

But the remainder of the routine memo -- consider it the fine print -- outlines $258 million in unpaid bills or expected shortfalls in programs such as Medicaid services for the needy ($174 million alone), the public defender’s office and corrections. Additionally, the state owes Minnesota $58.7 million under a discontinued tax reciprocity deal.

The result, by our math and Lang’s, is the $137 million shortfall.

It would be closer to the $340 million figure if the figure included the $200 million owed to the state’s patient compensation fund, a debt courts have declared resulted from an illegal raid on the fund under former Gov. Jim Doyle.
​

If you had taken only a little bit of time to actually read, research and consider all the facts presented before you responded, you would have known that "Wisconsin's version of the congressional budget office" that you mention is the Legislative Fiscal Bureau referred to in the Politifact piece.

Deceit is in haste but honesty can wait a fair leisure.

Instead of an honest, thoughtful and civil argument, we have a cheap, hasty excuse to dismiss a counterpoint before it was given any serious consideration. That only serves to undermine your credibility by highlighting your ignorance and overzealous determination to find any excuse to dismiss an opposing view.

If all you can do is spout talking points you clearly don't understand, throw temper tantrums and generally attempt to shout down any opposing point of view, no one will take anything you say seriously. It seems pretty clear that you will not even consider any opposing viewpoint or any criticism of the talking points you spout.

There can be no productive discourse with someone who's argument is premised on the notion that their view is morally superior to the opposing view and the opposing view is not worthy of serious consideration. Anyone who has to rely on such a tactic is typically making an argument that cannot stand on it's own merits...