Wisconsin: About to Get Real??

[Antonito]

I love how many of those (like BrokenLegs) who moan on and on about peoples rights and how they trump things like common sense will immediately throw peoples rights under the bus if they interfere with corporations making maximum profit.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Eibbus

What scares me about the remaining part of the bill is the fact that they can sell off all our utilities to private parties ( aka, financial backers of Walker ) without any sort of bidding process or permission from anyone, and at any price that they feel like.

this would allow the state to make no-bid sales, overriding public interest concerns, of heating, cooling or power plants. This rider is just an invitation to corruption, and part of a familiar pattern of selling off state-owned property to fill a budget gap in the short term, with disastrous consequences in the long term.

^^ Absolutely right. 100% agree. Wisconsin is setting up to sell of it's wealth to corporations. This part of the bill is still on the table and has not been passed and is clearly criminal.


However, thats a separate issue. The unions are also criminal. Good riddance.

Originally posted by Antonito
I love how many of those (like BrokenLegs) who moan on and on about peoples rights and how they trump things like common sense will immediately throw peoples rights under the bus if they interfere with corporations making maximum profit.

Sounds like you have a really deep understanding of the issue.

Heres some facts about public unions:
- Early retirement, union members can retire after 25, or 30 years of service and start collecting pension. That means they retire 10-15 years ealier than private workforce workers. That means that by the time their equal in the private workforce retires, they may have already collected 200,000-400,000$ in pension. This also means that their pension contributions have less time to accrue interest -AND - that they will be getting paid longer. So Who makes up the difference? TAXPAYERS.

The contributions needed by Wisconsin workers is somewhere in the order of 16% of their pay to make the system sustainable after XX years of contributing 3% and expecting the government to make up the rest. The big "compromise" they offered was to start putting in 6%, but they still expected to receive their full pensions.

The numbers don't work man. Not even close. I's not fair any way you slice it dude.

Unions are a great idea. If a group of people wants to freely negotiate with an employer, go nuts. LAWS FORCING employers to collective bargain with unions is a travesty.

Peoples "Rights" LOL @ you. I guess you believe some people deserve the right to other peoples money.

What a joke.


Heres some more info on those busdrivers that make 150,000/year... They are rpetty hard done by, working all thsoe extra house because they can't find other bus drivers right? Doing the taxpayer a favour right?

Also, the union contract limits part-timers to 15 percent of the number full-time drivers, and part-timers can only drive morning and afternoon school routes. Those rules create opportunities for overtime and other special pay for full-time workers.

The city negotiated more flexibility for using part timers in 2002-03, but a state audit last year recommended Metro seek even more flexibility and noted that some pay premiums, such as those for evening and Sunday shifts, are uncommon in the industry.

Nope - Collective bargaining FTMFL guarantees union workers ridiculous benefits and above industry wages and protections as usual.

I wonder how many representatives for the wisconsin taxpayer were present during those collective bargaining meetings? (HINT ZERO)

[broken_legs]

MOAR Commentary I like:

Pensions are a loan. We loan our present earnings to the government in the hope we receive it back (and a little more) at a future date. What no one understands is that there is risk involved when you loan money. There is a chance you will not receive it as the receiver may go bankrupt or you may take a haircut as assets can only pay a portion of what you invested.

These public workers are ignorant of risk, just as GM workers and any number of other pension plans that have gone bust. They assumed they would be paid in full. This is as dangerous as banks thinking they would be made whole (of course, they have more influence than a worker, thus, they are being made whole).

People can whine and complain and dance around crying how they are being cheated, and they are. Unfortunately, this is the nature of risk. You have to make an assessment of the borrowers ability to repay a loan.

This is complicated by a union that required your participation. There was no way to opt out and receive your benefits at the time you earned them. Further, there is no mechanism to hedge your risk- meaning, your union screwed you.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by broken_legs
Heres some facts about public unions:
- Early retirement, union members can retire after 25, or 30 years of service and start collecting pension. That means they retire 10-15 years ealier than private workforce workers. That means that by the time their equal in the private workforce retires, they may have already collected 200,000-400,000$ in pension. This also means that their pension contributions have less time to accrue interest -AND - that they will be getting paid longer. So Who makes up the difference? TAXPAYERS.

I'd be willing to agree with you if the State wasn't also trying to extend tax breaks, on a state and federal level, to the top 2% of income earners AND businesses.

That's like saying you want to beat your previous marathon time, by cutting off your foot to reduce the weight.

Similar moves are being tried in Florida where the Governor is cutting education funding for K-12 by $1.7 billion. The state doesn't have money. Sacrifices need to be made by everyone. Crisis averted.... Right? We can only wish. The same Florida Governor also passed a bill to give the same amount in in corporate and property tax breaks! Net effect? $0.

Even better, the Governor of Michigan is actually proposing raising taxes by, wait for it.... Eliminating tax breaks on seniors and low-income workers amounting to $1.7 billion. The state needs to save money right? Gee, $1.7 billion should go a long way in closing the budget gap, right? That's if you don't count the $1.8 billion in corporate tax cuts that he's proposing.

[focusdriv3r]

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I'd be willing to agree with you if the State wasn't also trying to extend tax breaks, on a state and federal level, to the top 2% of income earners AND businesses.

That's like saying you want to beat your previous marathon time, by cutting off your foot to reduce the weight.

Similar moves are being tried in Florida where the Governor is cutting education funding for K-12 by $1.7 billion. The state doesn't have money. Sacrifices need to be made by everyone. Crisis averted.... Right? We can only wish. The same Florida Governor also passed a bill to give the same amount in in corporate and property tax breaks! Net effect? $0.

Even better, the Governor of Michigan is actually proposing raising taxes by, wait for it.... Eliminating tax breaks on seniors and low-income workers amounting to $1.7 billion. The state needs to save money right? Gee, $1.7 billion should go a long way in closing the budget gap, right? That's if you don't count the $1.8 billion in corporate tax cuts that he's proposing.

You just noticed that governments give breaks to their corporate buddies that give them money to run for office. Every government has been guilty of this since the beginning of time. Democrats, republicans, whoever. It doesn't matter. It's clear that SPECIAL INTERST runs the show. Whether that be of Unions or Corporations.

So what does Corporate give-aways have to do with Unions?

Nothing. It has nothing to do with unions. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining.

It's like you are saying, gee yeah I agree that unions are bad, but so are corporations, and Walker is elimiating tax braks for old people, so actually I'm going to change my opinion and I think unions are actually good. Where is the logic in that?

Theres three issues there:
1.) Tax breaks for old people
2.) Union Busting
3.) Corporate give aways.

How does not agreeing with issue 1 & 3, change your opinion on Issue 2?

Separate the issues here, folks. Don't get distracted by all the nonsense.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by broken_legs



You just noticed that governments give breaks to their corporate buddies that give them money to run for office. Every government has been guilty of this since the beginning of time. Democrats, republicans, whoever. It doesn't matter. It's clear that SPECIAL INTERST runs the show. Whether that be of Unions or Corporations.

So what does Corporate give-aways have to do with Unions?

Nothing. It has nothing to do with unions. It has nothing to do with collective bargaining.

It's like you are saying, gee yeah I agree that unions are bad, but so are corporations, and Walker is elimiating tax braks for old people, so actually I'm going to change my opinion and I think unions are actually good. Where is the logic in that?

Theres three issues there:
1.) Tax breaks for old people
2.) Union Busting
3.) Corporate give aways.

How does not agreeing with issue 1 & 3, change your opinion on Issue 2?

Separate the issues here, folks. Don't get distracted by all the nonsense.

Because the State Governors have been using this "budget crisis" as an excuse to try to bust the unions. You've been arguing that unions have been able to rape and pillage the State's budget for years and squeeze every single dime out of the State's budget at the tax payers' expense. In actuality, these budget shortfalls that they've been pushing for won't actually make any difference regardless of what kind of concessions are given because it's not actually about the budget.

And while we're on the subject of taxpayers footing the bill for union wages, benefits, pension, etc; which tax payers are the ones truly footing the bill? Certainly not the top 2% or businesses, because they're the ones receiving the tax breaks. So ultimately, this union busting bill is about forcing the middle-class to give up some of their wages, benefits and pension, AND pay more in taxes to make up for the decrease in tax revenue.

Whether you like unions or not, this bill to strip the union's ability to collectively bargain is unethical and un-American. It's a basic human right to pool the powers of an individual into a unified voice that's strong enough to stand up against unfair/abusive workplaces and ensure fair pay and benefits. When you take away that right, then rampant abuse and exploitation are inevitable.

You can argue that unions are as outdated as the typewriter but it's not. Walker's proposal essentially states this:

We will pay what we want to pay you. You have no say in the matter.

Which essentially leads to:

You are a small cog in the wheel. You can quit in protest, we'll just find someone else dumber and more willing to take the job

So I'll tell you what corporate giveaways have to do with unions.
1) A budget crisis is a smoke screen for what the Republicans are actually trying to accomplish here, and it can't be anymore obvious than the fact that when you take the union wage give-backs and subtract the revenue lost from the tax giveaways, the net effect is zero or worse.
2) Corporations have just as much vested interest in breaking the unions as the GOP does. Not surprisingly, of the top 10 contributors to non-party committees, seven of them contribute to conservatives causes, whereas the other three contributors were unions to liberal causes. So as you say, lobbyists and special interest groups run the show; busting these unions can severely damage the funding for these liberal, and for the most part more Democrat-friendly, causes.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by sexualbanana


Because the State Governors have been using this "budget crisis" as an excuse to try to bust the unions. You've been arguing that unions have been able to rape and pillage the State's budget for years and squeeze every single dime out of the State's budget at the tax payers' expense. In actuality, these budget shortfalls that they've been pushing for won't actually make any difference regardless of what kind of concessions are given because it's not actually about the budget.

You realize that this is only ending Collective Bargaining Rights for PUBLIC UNION MEMBERS right?
ie - Only State/Government (taxpayer funded) union workers.

And while we're on the subject of taxpayers footing the bill for union wages, benefits, pension, etc; which tax payers are the ones truly footing the bill? Certainly not the top 2% or businesses, because they're the ones receiving the tax breaks. So ultimately, this union busting bill is about forcing the middle-class to give up some of their wages, benefits and pension, AND pay more in taxes to make up for the decrease in tax revenue.

You're talking about Walker's Budget. That bill hasn't been passed yet. Let's try to stay on topic shall we?

Whether you like unions or not, this bill to strip the union's ability to collectively bargain is unethical and un-American.

Forcing the government, BY LAW, AT EXPENSE OF OTHERS, to negotiate wages, and then forcing the government by law to stick to ridiculous agreements, is not ethical. Not even close.

It's a basic human right to pool the powers of an individual into a unified voice that's strong enough to stand up against unfair/abusive workplaces and ensure fair pay and benefits. When you take away that right, then rampant abuse and exploitation are inevitable.

Man you are hilarious. It's a human right to force the government by law to negotiate and re-negotiate wages every year??? That is not a human right. That is extortion.

Even by your ridiculous definition, only the people in the PUBLIC UNION get this right, while everyone else is denied this basic human right?? LOL at your silly logic.

Agreed, you have the human right to organize and have free speech. You can form a union, I have no issues with that. Where we differ is that you seem to think that union workers should also have the right to stop NON-UNION WORKERS from doing the same job. Furthermore, you don't have the right to FORCE BY LAW the government to table every couple of years to get more money. Thats horseshit. That's not freedom, that's extortion of the government, and your own union members through mandatory fees.

You can argue that unions are as outdated as the typewriter but it's not.

NO one said unions are outdated. I actually think unions are a good idea. I'm saying collective bargaining, enforced by law, is immoral, unfair and doesn't work.

Walker's proposal essentially states this:

We will pay what we want to pay you. You have no say in the matter.

Which essentially leads to:

You are a small cog in the wheel. You can quit in protest, we'll just find someone else dumber and more willing to take the job

^^^ EXACTLY!!!! Which leads to finding the MARKET PRICE for those jobs. If you can't find anyone to do your job, you aren't paying the market price. HARROW???? If you can find someone to do it for cheaper, then you are paying too much. THATS THE WHOLE POINT MAN!!!

So I'll tell you what corporate giveaways have to do with unions.
1) blah blah, ddancing around issues of unions
2) Corporations have just as much vested interest in breaking the unions as the GOP does.

(( PUBLIC UNIONS - GOVERNMENT WORKERS NOT PRIVATE SECTOR UNIONS!))

Harrow???

Edit:

Heres another Link I like that explains why Public Sector Unions should not have Collective Bargaining rights.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...public-unions/

[Cos]

Broken Legs....

You even mentioned how negative you are towards unions because all your friends got better jobs than you.

Selling off utilities is retarded no matter how you put it.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Cos
Broken Legs....
Selling off utilities is retarded no matter how you put it.

You're right it is retarded, I 100% agree with you. It's two separate and totally different issues - And now they aren't even in the same piece of legislation. So why do you guys keep bringin it up?

FYI - The people descending on the legislature building arent protesting the tax cuts for the rich, they are all union members trying to protect their taxpayer funded entitlements.

Separate the issues folks.

[sexualbanana]

Originally posted by broken_legs



You realize that this is only ending Collective Bargaining Rights for PUBLIC UNION MEMBERS right?
ie - Only State/Government (taxpayer funded) union workers.

Right. Tax breaks that cut tax revenue that is, in part, used to pay teacher salaries and fund education... Am I missing something?

Originally posted by broken_legs



You're talking about Walker's Budget. That bill hasn't been passed yet. Let's try to stay on topic shall we?

The section of the bill that related to the stripping of union collective bargaining abilities was, up until recently, part of his budget plan. Instead, that section has now been removed and passed by the State Legislature via a loophole that didn't require the presence of all members of the Senate. Again proving that their endgame the entire time was the removal of collective bargaining rights

Originally posted by broken_legs


Forcing the government, BY LAW, AT EXPENSE OF OTHERS, to negotiate wages, and then forcing the government by law to stick to ridiculous agreements, is not ethical. Not even close.

What are the ridiculous agreements? What are the details of these ridiculous agreements? The union had already agreed to Walker's demands to pay more toward their pensions and double their health insurance premiums, which is supposed to be about a 8% pay cut for the average worker.

Collective bargaining seemed to work there, didn't it? The State said they needed to cut costs and everyone needs to make a sacrifice. The union gave it to them. But for whatever reason, that wasn't enough.

Originally posted by broken_legs


Man you are hilarious. It's a human right to force the government by law to negotiate and re-negotiate wages every year??? That is not a human right. That is extortion.

Even by your ridiculous definition, only the people in the PUBLIC UNION get this right, while everyone else is denied this basic human right?? LOL at your silly logic.

Agreed, you have the human right to organize and have free speech. You can form a union, I have no issues with that. Where we differ is that you seem to think that union workers should also have the right to stop NON-UNION WORKERS from doing the same job. Furthermore, you don't have the right to FORCE BY LAW the government to table every couple of years to get more money. Thats horseshit. That's not freedom, that's extortion of the government, and your own union members through mandatory fees.

Again, the State said they have a budget crisis. No doubt about that. The State's budget deficit is south of $3.5 billion. The State re-negotiates with the union, asking for bigger contributions on their end for pension and health insurance premiums (I think wage rollbacks are in there too). The union agrees.

What's wrong with the collective bargaining process here? Nothing. Both sides agreed, on a fundamental level, about what needs to be done to address a large, and growing, budget gap.

It wasn't just enough for the State to ask the union to eat a little less at the dinner table. They don't even want the union to have a seat at the table. And that is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by broken_legs



^^^ EXACTLY!!!! Which leads to finding the MARKET PRICE for those jobs. If you can't find anyone to do your job, you aren't paying the market price. HARROW???? If you can find someone to do it for cheaper, then you are paying too much. THATS THE WHOLE POINT MAN!!!

I think that the efficiencies gained in finding a market price for a job is far outweighed by the inefficiencies caused by finding a market price. When you take away the ability to bargain collectively, then salary negotiations have to happen on a one-to-one basis, no? At least with unions, there is an established pay structure.

I like the point about finding a market price for a job, but I think it causes a bigger problem in individual salary negotiations.

But if we're going to talk about market reaction, my comment near the bottom addresses it a little more.

Originally posted by broken_legs



(( PUBLIC UNIONS - GOVERNMENT WORKERS NOT PRIVATE SECTOR UNIONS!))

Harrow???

Edit:

Heres another Link I like that explains why Public Sector Unions should not have Collective Bargaining rights.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...public-unions/

I don't disagree with the article that Government needs to be run better and should be run more like a business, afterall I think all levels of government at a fundamental level are a non-profit organization, and it's irresponsible to run deficit year after deficit year without any recourse.

You spend what you take in. Unfortunately, many levels of government in many different areas of the world haven't been following this mantra. We either spend more than we take in, or we spend more and take even less in. That's right, I'm going back to the tax break well. If I was running a legitimate business that needed to cut expenditures, then I'll make the cuts. I may not like it, but it's that or bankruptcy. But then why would I then decide to lower the price of my product when it won't effect my demand? The same people are still going to buy my product regardless of the price, so why would I want to reduce my revenue stream that effectively just offset any cuts in expenditures I just made?

Now onto my bit about market reaction, which admittedly is also a little off-topic.
We talk about how finding market value for a job is the right thing to do, but if you're going to accuse public unions of fleecing the State for every penny, then what was the market worth of the State's representative? Collective bargaining is a two-way dialogue, so who's ultimately responsible for allowing this to happen? Maybe it was a Democratic Governor? Maybe it was a Republican Governor?

The real question should be, who gives a damn? The Democrat vs Republican debate is pure BS. Americans are getting too caught up in the Red vs Blue debate that they don't realize that there are idiots on both sides who, intentionally or otherwise, will drive that bus off a cliff.

[broken_legs]

dammit banana man

Originally posted by sexualbanana
[B]

Right. Tax breaks that cut tax revenue that is, in part, used to pay teacher salaries and fund education... Am I missing something?

Yes you are missing something. You are missing logic and reasons. Your entire argument up until now has been that somehow this union busting is going to benefit evil corporations.

Then when I pointed out you have no clue what the hell youa re talking about and these are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES not private sector union members you start throwing out soundbytes about taxes and teachers.

WTF are you talking about?

The section of the bill that related to the stripping of union collective bargaining abilities was, up until recently, part of his budget plan.

Yea that's what I just said like 5 times already. Can we stop talking about the budget now?

Instead, that section has now been removed and passed by the State Legislature via a loophole that didn't require the presence of all members of the Senate. Again proving that their endgame the entire time was the removal of collective bargaining rights

So when the democrats learned that the elected majority were going to vote in favour of the bill, then they illegally stalled the legislative process by running away to illinois, what exactly do you call that?

There is no defense for what the democrats did. By using the loophole, the republicans passed a part of a bill that would have passed anyways. Wheres the scandal???? Oh that's right, there isn't one.

What are the ridiculous agreements? What are the details of these ridiculous agreements?

Already posted earlier, you ignored. See bus drivers, 150k/yr, limited part time workers, guaranteed overtime etc..

The union had already agreed to Walker's demands to pay more toward their pensions and double their health insurance premiums, which is supposed to be about a 8% pay cut for the average worker.

Already posted earlier, you ignored. See unfunded liability of 16% for pensions - Union only agreed to put in 6%, up from 3%. Taxpayers to pay the rest.

Collective bargaining seemed to work there, didn't it? The State said they needed to cut costs and everyone needs to make a sacrifice. The union gave it to them. But for whatever reason, that wasn't enough.

It didn't work at all. Union made a teeny tiny sacrafice, did not even come close to fixing the pension under funding issue. Not even in the same ball park. Their "compromise" is almost insulting and doesn't fix the problem of all the unfunded entitlement spending going to the union.

Again, the State said they have a budget crisis. No doubt about that. The State's budget deficit is south of $3.5 billion. The State re-negotiates with the union, asking for bigger contributions on their end for pension and health insurance premiums (I think wage rollbacks are in there too). The union agrees.

What's wrong with the collective bargaining process here? Nothing. Both sides agreed, on a fundamental level, about what needs to be done to address a large, and growing, budget gap.

The budget gap is still growing because their unfunded pension liabilities are ridiculous. Union is not willing to pay for their own benefits. They expect the tax payer to make up the difference if the stock market crashes and their pension value goes down. Thats not realistic. No one in real life has that right or bargaining power.

It wasn't just enough for the State to ask the union to eat a little less at the dinner table. They don't even want the union to have a seat at the table. And that is just plain wrong.

Wrong metaphor. The union is the fat kid that got into the iced cream before the taxpayers got home from work. The fat kid was able to do this because the fat kid used collective bargaining to get papa government to allow him to get of work at 3:30, while taxpayers have to work till 5. Also fat kid got a law passed that only lets fat kid eat ice cream, and no tax payers are allowed unless they also agree to unconstitutional fees just to be able to sit at the dinner table. There's no iced cream left now and the union is demanding the taxpayers go to the store and get more. Papa government is trying to put the fat kid on a diet before the family loses the house because it spent all its money on ice cream. Fat kid brings in lawyers and forces parents to buy more iced cream anyways. Taxpayers have to get another job to support fat kid.

I think that the efficiencies gained in finding a market price for a job is far outweighed by the inefficiencies caused by finding a market price.

^^^^ WHOA! Just read this one sentence a couple times. Let the meaning sink in. LOL

When you take away the ability to bargain collectively, then salary negotiations have to happen on a one-to-one basis, no? At least with unions, there is an established pay structure.

So now your entire argument is based on the "efficiencies" gained by dictating what the pay grade will be for all employees?

Oh man...

- What about the inefficiencies of paying EVERYONE WAY MORE THAN THEY ARE WORTH?
- What about the inefficiencies of SLOTH because no one can get fired?
- What about the inefficiencies of stupid people being promoted because of seniority, while smart people are stuck at the bottom fighting a war of attrition?
- And so many other obvious reasons. etc..

I like the point about finding a market price for a job, but I think it causes a bigger problem in individual salary negotiations.

LOL. Man, how does the private sector function at all??? Seriously??? I mean Seriously??? Critical Thinking much? Do I even need to go here?? It's a wonder anyone can do anything at all without the government telling us how LOL

I don't disagree with the article that Government needs to be run better and should be run more like a business, afterall I think all levels of government at a fundamental level are a non-profit organization, and it's irresponsible to run deficit year after deficit year without any recourse.

You spend what you take in. Unfortunately, many levels of government in many different areas of the world haven't been following this mantra. We either spend more than we take in, or we spend more and take even less in. That's right, I'm going back to the tax break well. If I was running a legitimate business that needed to cut expenditures, then I'll make the cuts. I may not like it, but it's that or bankruptcy. But then why would I then decide to lower the price of my product when it won't effect my demand? The same people are still going to buy my product regardless of the price, so why would I want to reduce my revenue stream that effectively just offset any cuts in expenditures I just made?

heh?

So you agree we shouldn't pay public union members so much? OK cool.

Now onto my bit about market reaction, which admittedly is also a little off-topic.
We talk about how finding market value for a job is the right thing to do, but if you're going to accuse public unions of fleecing the State for every penny, then what was the market worth of the State's representative? Collective bargaining is a two-way dialogue, so who's ultimately responsible for allowing this to happen? Maybe it was a Democratic Governor? Maybe it was a Republican Governor?

Holy Wisconsin Cheese Slice! - I think you are starting to come around hurr!!!

Collective Bargaining is a legally binding ONE WAY negotiation between the Taxpayer (who is not represented) and the Union, and a guy trying to bribe the union to vote for him.

That's the point. I think you are getting it now though.

The real question should be, who gives a damn? The Democrat vs Republican debate is pure BS. Americans are getting too caught up in the Red vs Blue debate that they don't realize that there are idiots on both sides who, intentionally or otherwise, will drive that bus off a cliff.

Also very true. Agree 100%. PUBLIC UNIONS ARE A TAXPAYER DISEASE.

[911fever]

Originally posted by g-m
unions were important during the industrial revolution... They should have gone the way of the dodo bird long ago.

+1 I agree. Unions are a business, they don't care about their people, they care about themselves. Selfish.

Originally posted by broken_legs


Even a couple years ago, I still didn't figure out that Unions are a scam. But now I hate them. They aren't fair to normal non-union workers. They exclude normal people from entire industries, and promote lazy useless workers IMO.

I am totally against any kind of legally mandated unions - This is the collective bargaining that Walker removed. It forces BY LAW, the state or employer to negotiate with the union rep. That is not fair to the employer. The employer has no recourse. It can't fire anyone, can't do anything. Unions are a freaking scourge on the face of the earth.

It's basically you me and everyone else, vs people in unions. They get taxpayer money, while taxpayers get screwed and receive service like the LRT thread shows...

Why the hell should we pay billions of dollars to save the 'oh so crucial' automobile industry in Ontario?

Those idiots get paid full wage of 40$/hr to sit at home when there is no work. It's ridiculous.

Look at the industries that have the most unions - Government (spiraling out of control costs, useless workers, horrible service), Automobile industry (bankrupt, useless)... and the list goes on.

I think we'll see class warfare soon - When governments finally realize that they can't afford unions and start trying to cut back - municipal, local, public, federal whatever unions, things are going to get really ugly, even in Canada.

And this is when the normal people like you and me need to stand up and tell the unions to STFU and take it like a normal tax payer - OR ELSE.

IMHO.

+1

Wow I agree with you immensely! haha first thing we've ever agreed with.

Originally posted by sexualbanana


I think you've gotten some platforms mixed up.

The Republican platform is usually one that is more business-friendly in the form of corporate tax breaks and high-income personal tax breaks. Effectively, lessening the role of government in the lives of Americans, or so they say. Also included in this is the Wisconsin union-busting, for lack of a better description. The legislation is really aimed at helping businesses cut down on cost by breaking union ties and their right to bargain collectively.

Democrats, on the other hand, are typically the ones calling for higher taxes on corporate and high-income earners. In contrast, they are looking to expand the role of government in the lives of Americans.

Unfortunately, as I've stated before. Republicans seem to have a funny ass-backwards approach to fiscal responsibility by not only cutting state expenditures (state-funded programs), but also passing tax breaks onto business and the top two percent that will lessen the state's tax revenue.

Unfortunate but true. Why can't we have a small government, a flat tax, and a balanced (non-deficit) budget? Very few government programs, little government intervention, sounds great!!

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by 911fever


Wow I agree with you immensely! haha first thing we've ever agreed with.

I was going to say the exact same thing; go broken_legs go, your hitting the points perfectly.

As for the other issues besides unions themselves, cutting taxes IN THEORY could boost the output of companies, causing them to generate just as much revenue as was initially cut, which ends up being win-win. IN THEORY mind you, a dog of an economy is still a dog of an economy!