Krugman with a good article on the Wisconsin union bulls***:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1

 

In any case, however, Mr. Ryan was more right than he knew. For what’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about the state budget, despite Mr. Walker’s pretense that he’s just trying to be fiscally responsible. It is, instead, about power. What Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to do is to make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a third-world-style oligarchy. And that’s why anyone who believes that we need some counterweight to the political power of big money should be on the demonstrators’ side.

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly021120.htm

 

NSFW language in the cartoon

Krugman with a good article on the Wisconsin union bulls***:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/...ugman.html?_r=1

 

Oh come on, the issue isn't so one-sided. These unions are the cause of a lot of the budget issues around the country precisely because they had way too much power and kept raping states for more money. Governors/state legislatures couldn't very well campaign against funding for teachers/cops/fireman, etc. until we hit these huge budget deficits. He's just taking advantage of the timing of it all.

 

Oh come on, the issue isn't so one-sided. These unions are the cause of a lot of the budget issues around the country precisely because they had way too much power and kept raping states for more money. Governors/state legislatures couldn't very well campaign against funding for teachers/cops/fireman, etc. until we hit these huge budget deficits. He's just taking advantage of the timing of it all.

There is being prudent, and then there is going way over the line.

 

Look, we've seen here a real live example of someone effected by this. Soxy is a died-in-the-wool liberal, and a teacher in Wisconsin. And despite all that, even she has said she finds it a resonable discussion item to expect them to pay more into health care and pension. That's pretty damn reasonable, considering it hits her directly in the checkbook, at a job that probably doesn't pay a whole lot.

 

If Walker just wanted to do that, I think he'd get that easily right now.

 

But no... he has to, while he's at it, cut pay by 10%, but much worse than that, he's adding on this attempt to ban unions for all real purposes. And despite the obviously huge uproar over it, he's still unwilling to compromise whatsoever. He's being an ass, plain and simple. The union busting part of this law does zero to the budget - zero. Its all about making a political point, and destroying the unions.

 

And by the way, if Walker does feel the unions in WI for public employees wield too much power, then have the balls to do this the right way - let them organize and do whatever they want to as a group. But if their demands in future negotiations are too high, then defend the government - don't give in. Don't be a coward and try to ban the unions from even organizing. Show some respect for the people who work for you, and show the voters you aren't just a bully.

 

Oh come on, the issue isn't so one-sided. These unions are the cause of a lot of the budget issues around the country precisely because they had way too much power and kept raping states for more money. Governors/state legislatures couldn't very well campaign against funding for teachers/cops/fireman, etc. until we hit these huge budget deficits. He's just taking advantage of the timing of it all.

 

The issue is pretty one-sided. Despite being a bogey-man for some, unions do not have nearly as much power as the billionaires who oppose them. Individual workers, even less so. The idea that unions been "raping states" is just laughable, especially when it's contrasted against who's opposing unions and the power they possess (especially after Citizens United).

What's the biggest budget problem out there right now (and specifically growing into the future)? Entitlements right? Who receives those? Public employees. I'm not saying that's good or bad, that's just a fact, and it's been a building problem for decades now. Government and the evil billionaires had zero control over it because the public employees ALWAYS won the PR battle. Who remembers the HUGE uproar when Daley would ask city workers to take some vacation days to help? While I agree that it's a bit much to still refuse to negotiate with the unions because they're conceding everything he wants, I can still see why he wants to do this. It's a power play for the future when the economy is rolling again and voters will be less apt to agree to reign in spending.

 

 

What's the biggest budget problem out there right now (and specifically growing into the future?

Defense spending

Defense spending

 

Ah yes, Wisconsin's famed army does cost quite a bit to maintain.

 

edit: (and I agree that defense spending is too high and should be cut)

Edited February 22, 201115 yr by Jenksismybitch

What's the biggest budget problem out there right now (and specifically growing into the future)? Entitlements right? Who receives those? Public employees. I'm not saying that's good or bad, that's just a fact, and it's been a building problem for decades now. Government and the evil billionaires had zero control over it because the public employees ALWAYS won the PR battle. Who remembers the HUGE uproar when Daley would ask city workers to take some vacation days to help? While I agree that it's a bit much to still refuse to negotiate with the unions because they're conceding everything he wants, I can still see why he wants to do this. It's a power play for the future when the economy is rolling again and voters will be less apt to agree to reign in spending.

Reigning in spending is good. Making it impossible for relatively low wage individuals to come to the table with some leverage against much stronger interests is not.

 

Reigning in spending is good. Making it impossible for relatively low wage individuals to come to the table with some leverage against much stronger interests is not.

 

My understanding was his bill specifically excludes bargaining for employee wages, so that's not really a concern. It's more about the benefits they would bargain for, which are probably better than the average American's already.

Edited February 22, 201115 yr by Jenksismybitch

My understanding was his bill specifically excludes bargaining for employee wages, so that's not really a concern. It's more about the benefits they would bargain for, which are probably better than the average American's already.

 

Bargaining involves give-and-take. Walker wants to take away many of their bargaining chips. Their benefits are better because they earn less on average.

Bargaining involves give-and-take. Walker wants to take away many of their bargaining chips. Their benefits are better because they earn less on average.

 

I just don't buy that in 2011 the average American in the private sector is better off than the average public sector employee. There's no way. Maybe existing employees with 20 years of experience, but a 25 year old new to his/her career, no f***ing way.

Statistics disagree?

 

On average, public sector workers earn less than similar private sector workers. That would mean a more highly educated work force they're comparing to than all private sector workers. That does not include benefits, but only wages. I'm sure you're right that someone with 20 years of experience and the associated pay raises and promotions in the public sector makes more than someone fresh out of college. That's trivial and I'm not sure why you'd bring it up.

 

The starting salary for a teacher around here is under $40k. What's the starting salary for someone with a BA or BS?

The issue is pretty one-sided. Despite being a bogey-man for some, unions do not have nearly as much power as the billionaires who oppose them. Individual workers, even less so. The idea that unions been "raping states" is just laughable, especially when it's contrasted against who's opposing unions and the power they possess (especially after Citizens United).

 

 

Should they pay for their own retirements? Healthcare?

Defense spending

 

LMFAO!!!! Yeah that's it!!!!

Should they pay for their own retirements? Healthcare?

 

Maybe? That's a reasonable debate to have. Soxy, someone who's in that situation, seems to agree that public workers should pay a little more for their benefits.

 

Removing all collective bargaining power, oh, and throwing in a nice clause to completely redefine what's in the public's best interest so you can sell state assets cheaply to your campaign backers, doesn't address it.

How Does This Help Balance Wisconsin's Budget?

 

From Walker's bill:

16.896

S

ale or contractual operation of

s

tate-owned heating, cooling, and power plant

s

. (1) Notwith

s

tanding

s

s

. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may

s

ell any

s

tate-owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any

s

uch plant, with or without

s

olicitation of bid

s

, for any amount that the department determine

s

to be in the be

s

t intere

s

t of the

s

tate. Notwith

s

tanding

s

s

. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public

s

ervice commi

s

s

ion i

s

nece

s

s

ary for a public utility to purcha

s

e, or contract for the operation of,

s

uch a plant, and any

s

uch purcha

s

e i

s

con

s

idered to be in the public intere

s

t and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under

s

. 196.49 (3) (B).

Without solicitation of bids? How is that frugal? How is that conservative? It couldn't be anthing to do with the Koch brothers, could it? And wouldn't it be more fiscally conservative not to simultaneously add over $150 million by rescinding tax hikes on those couples earning over $300,000 or individuals earning $150,000 at the same time as asking for sacrifices from people earning a fraction of that?

 

It's not the cutting of public sector benefits that concerns me. I think the budget situation demands such cuts, and Walker deserves credit for saying so and following through. It's the combination of no bid sales to corporations, exemptions for public sector unions like cops and firefighters who backed his election, and simultaneous tax cuts for the successful - in the context of asking for general sacrifice.

 

I'm glad I took my time on this. In general, I think public sector unions need to take a hit because of the recession's impact on state budgets, and because of their resistance to experimentation, flexibility and reform, as Reihan noted. But the more I read, the shadier and more ideological Walker seems.

 

via Sullivan

Edited February 22, 201115 yr by BigSqwert

LMFAO!!!! Yeah that's it!!!!

 

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).

Regarding the Koch brothers, I'm always a little skeptical when they're brought up that they've just become the left's version of the "OMG! Soros is controlling the world!" s***.

LMFAO!!!! Yeah that's it!!!!

 

I'll say it again, link the retirement benefits of public sector unions to the retirement benefits of the everyday joe, i.e. social security, and problem disappears. Want to retire, go ahead, but you get reduced benefitss at 62, and receive full benefis at what is now, nearly 67 yrs? You do not have to change anything.

 

 

The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending and is over six times larger than the military budget of China (compared at the nominal US dollar / Renminbi rate, not the PPP rate). The United States and its close allies are responsible for two-thirds to three-quarters of the world's military spending (of which, in turn, the U.S. is responsible for the majority).

 

 

And your point is what? End defense spending and we solve problem? Again LMFAO!!! You people are killing me. Continue circle jerk...

I'll say it again, link the retirement benefits of public sector unions to the retirement benefits of the everyday joe, i.e. social security, and problem disappears. Want to retire, go ahead, but you get reduced benefitss at 62, and receive full benefis at what is now, nearly 67 yrs? You do not have to change anything.

 

Great, now you've taken away some of the bargaining power for public workers and some of their total pay. Will you adjust their wages upwards to match their private sector counterparts as well?

And your point is what? End defense spending and we solve problem? Again LMFAO!!! You people are killing me. Continue circle jerk...

Maybe this conversation needs to be in a separate thread. I'm getting tired of the trolling.

And your point is what? End defense spending and we solve problem? Again LMFAO!!! You people are killing me. Continue circle jerk...

 

Nope. It's not a complicated point.

 

Defense spending keeps rising and rising and rising and rising. We outspend almost the entire rest of the world combined. It's unnecessary and it's very, very expensive. That doesn't mean I advocate cutting all defense spending. That doesn't mean cutting all defense spending would solve the problem.

 

What it does mean is that anyone who groans on and on about "fiscal responsibility" and balanced budgets and cries about socialism and kickbacks but supports all military expenditures is a hypocrite who has no real desire to address any of the real economic issues in this country.