15 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

So there seems to have been quite an uproar in Wisconsin the last week. I didn't really know much about it beyond the fact that the republican governor there was trying to reduce the power of unions and the pay-grades of people in public businesses. Then I found this article here that really makes it a bit more explainable: Shock Doctrine: USA.

The story of the privatization-obsessed Coalition Provisional Authority was the centerpiece of Naomi Klein’s best-selling book “The Shock Doctrine,” which argued that it was part of a broader pattern. From Chile in the 1970s onward, she suggested, right-wing ideologues have exploited crises to push through an agenda that has nothing to do with resolving those crises, and everything to do with imposing their vision of a harsher, more unequal, less democratic society. Which brings us to Wisconsin 2011, where the shock doctrine is on full display.

In recent weeks, Madison has been the scene of large demonstrations against the governor’s budget bill, which would deny collective-bargaining rights to public-sector workers. Gov. Scott Walker claims that he needs to pass his bill to deal with the state’s fiscal problems. But his attack on unions has nothing to do with the budget. In fact, those unions have already indicated their willingness to make substantial financial concessions — an offer the governor has rejected.

So, whats your opinion on the events ongoing in Wisconsin. Is this a sign of a subconscious change in American mentality?

[Hostile]

Let's not forget that the democrat state legislators fled the state (in more than one state) in order to not have to vote on the bill(s). Which is rediculous. Imagine if republicans fled to Canada in order to not have to vote on Health Care reform?

It's called not showing up for work. Doesn't that seem like a strange platform to stand on? If the republicans did that, I would be ashamed of them. But democrats have no shame, they are simply an entertainment venue.

If one side of a football game is winning, what kind of strategy is it for the losing team to run off the field and not come back. I think the fans might be alittle upset!

I scratch my head at liberals sometimes, very emotional and responsive instead of coming up with a long term counter strategy. The republicans accepted the Health Care reform and regrouped, got elected, and are trying to overturn it. That's fair to me, accept your initial loss and try to come back and counter. Running away and fleeing is so French.

The people voted for the republicans, why would you counter the will of the people? Because left wing elites believe the will of the people is irrelevant and that people in general are too stupid to decide for themselves. They force upon people their version of "love" of country.

It reminds me of the 1980 movie Flash Gordon where Ming is gonna force marry the earth woman and a ship flys in the background and the banner says "All creatures will now be merry" than another ship flys by and states "Failure to comply will result in death..."

[duke_Qa]

By the sound of things, these laws were more a bum-rush deal where the Republicans made a ton of dubious law changes that be overturned in the next election... But they would instantly cause long-lasting damage and earn those who got the laws through a quick dime. A political Hit and Run more or less. If these laws were proper, would they cause such a ruckus as they have? I somehow believe that those Republicans that voted for the healthcare reform were of an opinion that there was a need for improvement. This seems not to be the case here.

Edited by duke_Qa, 26 February 2011 - 10:27 PM.

[Ash]

While it is clear from the way his post is written that nothing's changed about Hostile being willing to argue on the wetness of water or which direction the sun rises on where Democrats are concerned.

While I don't see how denying the Republicans a quorum is more beneficial than defeating their bills by voting against, it is also true that I am largely ignorant of that most despicable thing we call politics' inner diabolical workings. Chances are, the Democrats (who, in this instance, are clearly the ones showing signs of sanity) are probably outnumbered and couldn't defeat them in a straight-up vote.

While I admit clearing national debt is always going to be less than popular due to the way those who work for a living and don't earn ridiculous sums of money are the only ones who'll suffer, why tread on unions for it? The only reason one would tread on trade unions is as a stepping stone to the reaving of their workers' pay and conditions. There is no other reason that one would pursue that agenda. That's right, Republicans, leave the serfs and peons who keep the country going (and without whom the political and entrepreneurial elite would be lording over an empty shell) while your patrons sit and look down upon their plight from atop their mountains of money and smile contentedly, as if to say "Yes, we own you."

[duke_Qa]

Yeah, I'm a bit confused why they would need to euthanize the unions when the unions were apparently very willing to help out by cutting wages and the likes. Unions are one of the few organizations with power beyond corporations and governments, and removing them would only be useful for those that enjoy having their minions isolated and vulnerable.

I suspect that they need 20 to vote on something, and it wouldn't matter if the democrat voted against it, as long as he was there to vote. think I heard there were 13-14 democrats that have run off, so I guess thats the ratio between them.

Hrmph, did the link die now? nytimes, they went p2p a while back didn't they, then i wonder why i could see it... was it some 24h free thingie perhaps.
Anyway, more news from Reuters: Wont back down in union battle

Tens of thousands of protesters marched against Walker's plan in Wisconsin on Saturday and solidarity rallies for labor rights were held around the country. More protesters were expected at the state capital on Sunday.Opponents see Walker's proposal as an attempt to break the union movement and the Wisconsin fight has become a flashpoint in a growing national struggle over labor union power.

[...]
Walker's proposal would make state workers contribute more to health insurance and pensions, end government collection of union dues, let workers opt out of unions and require unions to hold recertification votes every year.

Collective bargaining would be allowed only on wage increases up to the rate of inflation

I'd guess that having the unions support their members with health-insurance and pensions is one thing. We get discounts on insurances from unions up here among other things. But I suspect there are certain things he fails to mention there, and the bargaining roof up to the rate of inflation basically means they can't argue for better wages, which is kinda what unions should be spending most of their time on.

Edited by duke_Qa, 27 February 2011 - 10:33 PM.

[Hostile]

I never understood the idea of state employees being forced to join the union or opting out but still having to pay union dues. If it's supposed to be the right of people to join a union, shouldn't it be a right to opt out without penalty?

[Hostile]

1,500 Teachers Paid to Do Union Business While Missing Class

In New York City's funny math, you get only one teacher for the price of two.

The Department of Education pays about 1,500 teachers for time they spend on union activities -- and pays other teachers to replace them in the classroom.

It's a sweetheart deal that costs taxpayers an extra $9 million a year to pay fill-ins for instructors who are sprung -- at full pay -- to carry out responsibilities for the United Federation of Teachers.

With Mayor Bloomberg calling for thousands of teacher layoffs to balance the 2012 budget, critics say it's time to halt the extravagant benefit.

"In these tight fiscal times, it defies common sense to pay two different people to do one job," said Dick Dadey, executive director of Citizens Union, a government watchdog. "It's a waste of money."

That $9 million would cover the salaries of 198 new teachers at the current annual $45,530 starting pay.

The DOE lets 40 experienced teachers collect top pay and fringe benefits, but work just one class period a day.

Under a contract agreement since 2003, the DOE excuses these veterans to work for the UFT -- currently 38 as district representatives and two as union vice presidents. The UFT pays them another salary, plus expenses.

English teacher Tom Dromgoole, for instance, collects top teacher pay, $100,049 a year, from the DOE for his slot at Leadership and Public Service HS in downtown Manhattan. But he is relieved for most of the day to serve as a UFT high school rep. The UFT supplements his salary by $50,461, records show.

Click for more on this story about teachers being paid to do union business from the New York Post.

http://www.foxnews.c...ntcmp=obnetwork

[Námo]

Surprised?

Unions have always supported Big Government, Socialist style, everywhere ... I guess it's payback time for the current administration.

see also: Brave New World, DoE Edition

[duke_Qa]

Like it or not, big governments has done a lot more good than small governments. But they do at times need a good weeding to get rid of the opportunistic persons who live off backwater redundancies.

[Hostile]

I have to disagree on the big vs. small government thing. Government is corrupt (like religion) by nature because it's run by humans, bigger the government, bigger the total level of corruption, bloviating, redundency, politics, and old school mentality.

I don't see any reason for an overly bloated centralized government. More localized juristriction makes more sense as locals govern themselves better because they know thier own needs. Exceptions of course. The US south should not have had slavery. It was worth going to war about.

But for the most part, the Federal government should only be concerned with national defense and fair commerce. Not telling me how many calories I will eat, which drawers to wear today, and which toothpaste it recommends.

There are 100,000 IRS employees. There are 300 million people in the US. One out of every 3000 people across my nation works for the IRS. Don't you think that might be too much?

A national sales tax would reduce that number to 10% it's orginal value and remove corporate tax loopholes. See we need to begin to reduce the amount of paid Federal employees while still maintaining the same tax levels. With a national sales tax (not VAT tax) than those who buy things pay tax (you know, like rich people buy stuff) and the poor can be exempt by not charging sales tax on basic foodstuffs.

Unfortunately that's gonna put alot of accountants out of work. And alot of lawyers as well.

[duke_Qa]

I have to disagree on the big vs. small government thing. Government is corrupt (like religion) by nature because it's run by humans, bigger the government, bigger the total level of corruption, bloviating, redundency, politics, and old school mentality.

I don't see any reason for an overly bloated centralized government. More localized juristriction makes more sense as locals govern themselves better because they know thier own needs. Exceptions of course. The US south should not have had slavery. It was worth going to war about.

I don't disagree that governments are corrupt. Most human systems are flawed in some fashion. And that is exactly why I would rather have power under control by a system where you as a voter have a chance to show your anger with bad decisions by voting for someone else in the next election. It is not a perfect way to punish those you don't like, but its better than nothing.

And people who know that their "sins" will come back to bite them in the ass, usually try to avoid sinning, which is not something you can say about your average Mega Corp where the only sin is to "not make money".

There are 100,000 IRS employees. There are 300 million people in the US. One out of every 3000 people across my nation works for the IRS. Don't you think that might be too much?

I think those 100'000 must be over-worked, having 3000 people each to check taxes for. Every single one with a different economic background and tax-exempts. 1:3000 does not really sound like a very bad number IMO, I would rather worry about the non-economic bureaucrat ratio, and then lawyer ratio.

[Námo]

What We’re Talking About When We Talk About Big Government

[Last week] The General Accountability Office, or GAO, found a massive amount of overlapping and even duplicative programs amongst federal agencies. The GAO did not release a figure regarding the total amount of such waste, but Senator Tom Coburn — who pushed for the report to be conducted — estimated that the report identified between $100 billion and $200 billion in redundancy. Coburn’s figure does not include spending that is neither duplicative nor overlapping but simply ridiculous, as judged by rational men, and as such the actual figure of federal program waste is quite more disgusting.

In Europe, the EUSSR is a fine example of Big Government: HUGE bureaucracy, HUGE redundant spendings for nothing, and 'one-size-fits-all' policies resulting in, among other calamities, the current Euro-crisis.

[duke_Qa]

And before the EU we had ww1 and ww2. I rather have a huge bureaucracy with plenty of idiotic red tape than hundreds of millions of lives lost in economically motivated wars for resources and power.

[Puppeteer]

the EUSSR

Oh ho ho ho, I see what you did thur. Classy.

[Námo]

Andrew Klavan: Behold! Your Public Sector Unions at Work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su4PwZCWUdg

[duke_Qa]

Well I'll give them one thing right about that video, and that is that the more people that are employed by the government, the more votes the government supporting those employments get. We've seen quite a bit of that the last 10 years, and its really not a very sustainable way to run an economy.

Then again I'm a member of the social-liberal party up here, which believes in critically reviewing and cutting down on redundant bureaucracy to simplify the lives of those that have to swim in those waters. The labour party on the other hand gets voters on bureaucracy inflations and public jobs, so they are more interested in keeping things on this track.