http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110216/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
In case you didnt know, Unions in Wisconsin are protesting a bill that would take away
all bargaining rights for public workers. The proposed bill would effect Firefighters, Policemen, Teachers and many others. Its been a standard protest so far as I can see, picket signs ect.
But according to Glenn beck...http://mediamatters.org/research/201102170018
QuoteOn the February 16 edition of his Fox News show, Beck stated that protests in Madison, WI, as well as in the Middle East and Mexico are part of "evil spreading around the globe."
Quote"You are about to see this president start embracing the uprisings in this country. You are going to see him embrace the teachers unions and all of the unions that are marching on the streets." Beck later characterized the protests as "riots in the streets."
Michelle Malkin had some choice words as well:
QuoteIn a February 16 post about protests in Wisconsin, Michelle Malkin wrote that the SEIU "and its allies stormed in for a sleepover protest" at the state Capitol building. She later wrote of teachers staging a protest: "Kiddie human shields become kiddie sacrificial lambs." In a later post, Malkin called the protesters "union thugs."
Yet all of the healthcare reform protests were noble and patriotic. Even the ones where they brought loaded weapons.
You know, there's a way we can make this sort of thing even funnier.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:13:01 PM
You know, there's a way we can make this sort of thing even funnier.
Protest riot in clown suits?
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 17, 2011, 06:14:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:13:01 PM
You know, there's a way we can make this sort of thing even funnier.
Protest riot in clown suits?
No, I think it's time
someone a few dozen of us brought back Captain Swing....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Swing
Only replace the threats with complaints and mockery.
What's really funny is that Wisconsin is totally broke. The unions can bargain all they want, but the state literally doesn't have anything to bring to the table to offer them.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
What's really funny is that Wisconsin is totally broke. The unions can bargain all they want, but the state literally doesn't have anything to bring to the table to offer them.
Still, outlawing bargaining, and then labeling anyone who complains "union thugs" is lulzworthy.
As soon as I saw "Beck" in the post...
Anyway...
Unions are an odd subject for me. Yes, it's good to have a group acting to protect the individuals in the group from the big, bad companies who employ them. In the past, they certainly served an important purpose, and, to some extent, I'm sure they do today.
However, working at a small university with not one, not two, but FIVE different unions, and being in a position where I'm asked to research the feasibility of some of the shit they try to demand in negotiations, I have NO patience with today's unions.
The ones I've dealt with are more concerned with proving to their members that they're worth the dues they charge. We currently have a grievance filed which, after some research, if we just nod, say, "SURE, no problem," we'll actually be taking money OUT of more paychecks than we're adding to. (Note that each one of them has access to their own time cards, but, apparently, lack the brains to do the math.) Our teacher's union attempted to demand an individual, personal office for EVERY member of the part-time faculty. (That is, for the record, over 250 professors per term. WHERE do they expect us to build this office building which will set empty most of the time, since these guys, by contract, can teach no more than three classes a semester?) We had one union threaten to strike because 13 vacation days, beginning to accrue per pay period on the date of hire, just aren't enough, and they were pissy that we were taking their "shopping day" (a half-day off between Thanksgiving and Christmas, a VERY busy time of year around here) away from them.
Unions drive me bugshit.
Yes, I can see them protesting a bill taking away all bargaining rights for public workers. But... "riots?" Yeesh.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:21:27 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 06:19:18 PM
What's really funny is that Wisconsin is totally broke. The unions can bargain all they want, but the state literally doesn't have anything to bring to the table to offer them.
Still, outlawing bargaining, and then labeling anyone who complains "union thugs" is lulzworthy.
Oh, yeah. I'm horrormirthing both sides of this.
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:23:20 PM
Yes, I can see them protesting a bill taking away all bargaining rights for public workers. But... "riots?" Yeesh.
So management can be organized, but labor can't?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:23:20 PM
Yes, I can see them protesting a bill taking away all bargaining rights for public workers. But... "riots?" Yeesh.
So management can be organized, but labor can't?
Oh, sure they can. However, my issue is the fact that those doing the organizing HERE seem more interested in their OWN pockets than those of the people they're trying to protect. In our case, all but one of the unions are part of larger unions, not just people who work here. (And, last I heard, one of the "big" outside unions is sniffing around the last.) They go for big, grand gestures that, essentially, either cost us a shitload of money we can't afford to spend, or that wind up doing little or nothing, other than to give them a "we made the big, bad school give you X," pay no attention that it cost you "Y."
My issue with the unions I have experience with is that they're more invested in fostering a "Union vs. Management" situation, no matter what, when the management is honestly trying to work out what's best for everyone.
I haven't had a flippin' raise of any real amount since mid-2008. Why? With the economy in the tank, enrollment is down, and we had to cover the contracted raises for the unions, AND, those unions in negotiations for contract renewal were demanding even bigger raises. (And, of course, payroll isn't union.)
Organize, sure. Absolutely. But make sure those doing the negotiations realize that if they sink the ship, NOBODY is getting across the river.
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:37:35 PM
Oh, sure they can. However, my issue is the fact that those doing the organizing HERE seem more interested in their OWN pockets than those of the people they're trying to protect. In our case, all but one of the unions are part of larger unions, not just people who work here.
Welcome to Discordia.
It's fucking
everywhere when you pay attention.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:23:20 PM
Yes, I can see them protesting a bill taking away all bargaining rights for public workers. But... "riots?" Yeesh.
So management can be organized, but labor can't?
I think its less a problem with organized labor and more an issue of what that organized labor is doing. In the company my Dad works for, labor unions are indispensable. His company would still behave like it was 1922 without a Union forcing them to treat workers with some level of respect. However, there are also some Unions which have gone above and beyond reasonable demands and have made a bad name for most unions, even when its likely a relative few in comparison.
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 17, 2011, 06:44:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:25:52 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:23:20 PM
Yes, I can see them protesting a bill taking away all bargaining rights for public workers. But... "riots?" Yeesh.
So management can be organized, but labor can't?
I think its less a problem with organized labor and more an issue of what that organized labor is doing. In the company my Dad works for, labor unions are indispensable. His company would still behave like it was 1922 without a Union forcing them to treat workers with some level of respect. However, there are also some Unions which have gone above and beyond reasonable demands and have made a bad name for most unions, even when its likely a relative few in comparison.
Waiting for a downside.
TGRR,
Approves of anything that means piles of unnecessary paperwork.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:40:44 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:37:35 PM
Oh, sure they can. However, my issue is the fact that those doing the organizing HERE seem more interested in their OWN pockets than those of the people they're trying to protect. In our case, all but one of the unions are part of larger unions, not just people who work here.
Welcome to Discordia.
It's fucking everywhere when you pay attention.
Yeah, of course it is. :argh!:
Quote from: Ratatosk on February 17, 2011, 06:44:36 PM
I think its less a problem with organized labor and more an issue of what that organized labor is doing. In the company my Dad works for, labor unions are indispensable. His company would still behave like it was 1922 without a Union forcing them to treat workers with some level of respect. However, there are also some Unions which have gone above and beyond reasonable demands and have made a bad name for most unions, even when its likely a relative few in comparison.
Exactly. The larger unions, here, treat us like they treat everybody else. Do the other universities they deal with need the same treatment? Maybe, maybe not, I dunno... But I DO know they're not demanding safety features, or "fair" increases. We had one rep, at the table, state that it was his job to "get as much out of (the university) as possible for as little work as he could."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Waiting for a downside.
See earlier post about me not having a raise since 2008. :kingmeh:
Not getting one this year, either.
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Waiting for a downside.
See earlier post about me not having a raise since 2008. :kingmeh:
Not getting one this year, either.
That may have more to do with the fact that most places
haven't recovered since November of 2008.
But you can make up the difference by stealing office supplies.
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Waiting for a downside.
See earlier post about me not having a raise since 2008. :kingmeh:
Not getting one this year, either.
You all should form a union!
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 17, 2011, 06:55:41 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 17, 2011, 06:52:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 17, 2011, 06:46:18 PM
Waiting for a downside.
See earlier post about me not having a raise since 2008. :kingmeh:
Not getting one this year, either.
You all should form a union!
No shit. The clerical union keeps trying to claim us... but I've seen them negotiate.
I could shut down their tries with one phone call. ("You DO realize I have a copy of the Memorandum of Agreement stating that (name) and (name), while acting as the negotiating team, arranged for THIS one-time benefit for themselves
only, don't you?")
As angry teachers in the Midwest shut down more than a dozen school districts in protest Thursday, Republican officials across the nation have made teachers' unions "public enemy No. 1" in a battle to trim budgets and rewrite the rules on how unions and states work together.
In Wisconsin, Ohio, New York and New Jersey, governors are taking on the unions -- who they see as guilty of demanding excessive benefits and causing out-of-control waste -- in their quest to cut spending and regain control over the educational system.
Some feel overly generous union contracts are busting state budgets, and many are using the current fiscal crisis to do something about it.
"I'm attacking the leadership of the union because they're greedy, and they're selfish and they're self-interested," New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie told a conservative conference Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/17/teacher.budget.crisis/index.html?hpt=T1
Pot/Kettle
:horrormirth: Union laws, if that bill go through, are quite possibly in trouble. The fuckers who pass it, if it gets passed, will never see the inside of that capitol building again, but it will still spell trouble for unions.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 17, 2011, 10:21:23 PM
As angry teachers in the Midwest shut down more than a dozen school districts in protest Thursday, Republican officials across the nation have made teachers' unions "public enemy No. 1" in a battle to trim budgets and rewrite the rules on how unions and states work together.
In Wisconsin, Ohio, New York and New Jersey, governors are taking on the unions -- who they see as guilty of demanding excessive benefits and causing out-of-control waste -- in their quest to cut spending and regain control over the educational system.
Some feel overly generous union contracts are busting state budgets, and many are using the current fiscal crisis to do something about it.
"I'm attacking the leadership of the union because they're greedy, and they're selfish and they're self-interested," New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie told a conservative conference Wednesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/17/teacher.budget.crisis/index.html?hpt=T1
Pot/Kettle
:lulz:
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 17, 2011, 10:21:23 PM
"I'm attacking the leadership of the union because they're greedy, and they're selfish and they're self-interested," New Jersey's Republican Gov. Chris Christie told a conservative conference Wednesday.
Thats a bad thing?
\
(http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k222/tommyatkins5/Ayn_Rand.jpg)
Ayn was pretty much to the left of these people on the subject of Unions. She had some heavily qualified praise for the idea in 'shrugged.
Again, these people are to the right of Ayn Rand :x
Quote from: Slyph on February 18, 2011, 02:15:07 PM
Again, these people are to the right of Ayn Rand :x
:lulz: took a minute for that to sink in.
Related:http://www.usnewssource.com/headlines/ex-cia-analyst-ray-mcgovern-beaten-and-arrested-as-hillary-clinton-talks-about-freedom_256726.html
QuoteEx-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Beaten and Arrested as Hillary Clinton Talks about Freedom
Hypocrisy has reached a new level as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked at George Washington University on Wednesday, disapproving governments that arrest protesters, not allowing freedom of speech. Former C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern was taken from the audience by two security guards, beaten and left bleeding in jail. His crime? Standing silently with his back turned to Clinton, wearing a t-shirt that said "Veterans for Peace". Officially it was "Disorderly conduct".
McGovern wanted to be "witness to the fact that many Americans are very much opposed to these policies of permanent war", but he had no idea that it would get him brutalized, arrested and rather seriously hurt.
The timing was "excellent", as Clinton smilingly said "...and then the government pulled the plug", the two men grabbed the 71-year-old McGovern and dragged him out of the auditorium. "So this is America," said McGovern.
"They took me outside, put two sets of iron handcuffs that pierced my wrists. The bleeding went all over my pants.", said McGovern.
McGovern became a political activist after a 27-year-long career as C.I.A. officer. He served under seven U.S. presidents, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House.
:lulz:
:horrormirth:
Oh for fucks sake... Officially we have become a parody of ourselves :o
As a funny parallel... That same exact speech got Clinton censored from the internet in China.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/china-censors-info-on-u-s-internet-freedom-policy/
QuoteReports from China indicate that Chinese censors have blocked posts from the U.S. Embassy highlighting Clinton's recent speech on Internet freedoms, and China's top microblogging service Sina has blocked searches on the terms "Hillary" and "Hillary Clinton" with a message that the search results were blocked due to Chinese laws and regulations.
Clinton's speech elaborated on Internet freedoms as a primary plank of U.S. foreign policy, describing Internet freedoms as a basic human right. In the speech, Clinton said nations like China that stifle their citizen's online speech and expression will pay long-term social and economic costs, including a "dictators' dilemma" of being forced to greater lengths of oppression to maintain control over media and speech. "Those who clamp down on Internet freedom may be able to hold back the full expression of their people's yearnings for a while, but not forever."
Chinese censors also recently blocked searches for "Egypt" in the wake of anti-government protests in that country that led to the resignation of president Mubarak. China is also not above shutting down Internet and mobile access in entire regions of the nation, such as in 2009 when ethnic riots broke out in the country's Xinjiang region. Internet and domestic mobile text services were shut down for month, and only re-enabled for domestic messaging and access to approved Web sites.
The Chinese government consistently describes its citizens' access to the Internet as free and unrestricted, while maintaining it has the right to block and restrict access to information it deems harmful or disruptive.
we really are living in the weirdest and most confusing period of history to date.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 18, 2011, 03:20:46 PM
Related:
http://www.usnewssource.com/headlines/ex-cia-analyst-ray-mcgovern-beaten-and-arrested-as-hillary-clinton-talks-about-freedom_256726.html
QuoteEx-CIA Analyst Ray McGovern Beaten and Arrested as Hillary Clinton Talks about Freedom
Hypocrisy has reached a new level as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talked at George Washington University on Wednesday, disapproving governments that arrest protesters, not allowing freedom of speech. Former C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern was taken from the audience by two security guards, beaten and left bleeding in jail. His crime? Standing silently with his back turned to Clinton, wearing a t-shirt that said "Veterans for Peace". Officially it was "Disorderly conduct".
McGovern wanted to be "witness to the fact that many Americans are very much opposed to these policies of permanent war", but he had no idea that it would get him brutalized, arrested and rather seriously hurt.
The timing was "excellent", as Clinton smilingly said "...and then the government pulled the plug", the two men grabbed the 71-year-old McGovern and dragged him out of the auditorium. "So this is America," said McGovern.
"They took me outside, put two sets of iron handcuffs that pierced my wrists. The bleeding went all over my pants.", said McGovern.
McGovern became a political activist after a 27-year-long career as C.I.A. officer. He served under seven U.S. presidents, presenting the morning intelligence briefings at the White House.
:horrormirth: What a world.
So,Sean Hannity (I think?) is essentially, and unsurprisingly, casting the union protests as a temper tantrum, being thrown by greedy little fuckers who don't realize that there's no money. No mentions whatsoever about the bill and its effects.
Quote from: Hover Cat on February 18, 2011, 07:38:47 PM
So,Sean Hannity (I think?) is essentially, and unsurprisingly, casting the union protests as a temper tantrum, being thrown by greedy little fuckers who don't realize that there's no money. No mentions whatsoever about the bill and its effects.
I might also add that the unions have offered a ridiculous amount of pay cuts(up in the millions if I remember correctly). The bill isnt about money(and neither are the protests) its about taking away their right to negotiate.
Of course everyone is playing it out to be those evil greedy firefighters and teachers wanting more of your money.
http://tinyurl.com/teapartystupid
It was only a matter of time until the Tea Party got in on this.
Damn it, don't people understand that if we continue to run deficits we're just mortgaging our children's future?
We need to cut spending now and the obvious best place to start is by cutting the funds we use to educate our children to prepare them for the future.
:argh!:
I cant wait until the people of Wisconsin overthrough the military backed junta of Governor Walker, and he has to flee to to a secret-banking jurisdiction with his stolen millions, funded through stealing and resale of office supplies from government buildings.
In other news, you just saw the current Republican playbook in operation. In short, it is this: split the middle class. Teachers are one of the few professions that can be still considered middle class left (and even then, only barely) and they're attempting to play off union/non-union, public and private sector, old versus young (and of course working versus middle class).
The idea is to lay blame to public workers for the financial mess, after poor people with their subprime mortgages and cripple the unions in order to indefinitely extend the Bush-era tax cuts.
It's not working, but only for the moment. I am fairly confident that eventually at least one Democrat will take one for the team (the team in question being "Team Financially Fucking You In The Ass") and go all "bipartisan" with the Republicans. And then the whole thing will fall apart and everyone will be fucked.
This aint Egypt, people. Shit, this aint even Greece. This is the London student protests. They're gonna get what they want and everyone else is screwed, and it doesn't matter how much "people power" is mobilized or even if you start breaking shit in the streets, because the people at the top are compromisers and it is far easier to compromise when you're not the one who will be paying the economic costs.
grrrrrrrrrrr god damnit !
:vom:
it's painful to watch, it really does
Apparently, the unions offered to accept all the financial aspects of the governor's demands, including paying more for their health benefits, and only requested that they be allowed to keep their collective bargaining rights. The governor turned it down.
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions
Wheee!
www.istandwithscottwalker.com
Guess who is funding it? If you said the Koch Brothers (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/), award yourself a suitable prize. The Tea Party tards, who clearly have no idea of how played they are, are being mobilized to counter-protest.
Quote from: Luna on February 20, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Apparently, the unions offered to accept all the financial aspects of the governor's demands, including paying more for their health benefits, and only requested that they be allowed to keep their collective bargaining rights. The governor turned it down.
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions
Smells like pure union busting.
Even the police know this is an attempt to divide and conquer
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/opinion/editorial/article_b0884557-ba54-5230-90f9-5eab74dffc25.html
QuoteWe all have jobs to do and all of our jobs are important jobs so I don't see why we're exempted," said Bill Drath a firefighter and member of the Wisconsin Professional Firefighters Association Local 487. Drath says union members appreciate the gesture from the governor, but they don't agree with the plan. "The elimination of collective bargaining and what's been in place in Wisconsin for 50 plus years is wrong," continued Drath. "It's a step toward dictatorship, not democracy.
[....]
Both unions have now thrown their support behind fellow state employees. Police and firefighters have shown up in large numbers to join protesters at the state capitol. "Our organization simply can't stand idly by while the collective bargaining rights of so many in the state are stripped from them," continued Palmer. "We feel that he may be exempting us today, to come at us tomorrow," commented Drath. "Divide and conquer."
Meanwhile, there are some people who seem to be unreasonably greedy fucks, but they're, uh, Republican connected:
http://www.wqow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14059749
QuoteThe father of Wisconsin's two most powerful state lawmakers was just picked to lead the Wisconsin State Patrol.
Department of Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb, with Gov. Scott Walker's blessing, announced the appointment of Stephen Fitzgerald, 68, to the position Tuesday that will pay Fitzgerald $105,678 a year and boost his public pension just as he presumably nears retirement.
Fitzgerald's eye-rolling appointment also follows his defeat in the fall election for Dodge County sheriff by a 2-to-1 margin. So he's been seeking employment and just bounced back big time by landing a law-enforcement gem.
I wonder if even that will be enough now.
Quote from: Charley Brown on February 20, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Quote from: Luna on February 20, 2011, 03:17:43 PM
Apparently, the unions offered to accept all the financial aspects of the governor's demands, including paying more for their health benefits, and only requested that they be allowed to keep their collective bargaining rights. The governor turned it down.
http://www.biztimes.com/daily/2011/2/18/republicans-reject-offer-by-unions-to-compromise-on-concessions
Smells like pure union busting.
Unions that backed the governor (financially speaking) are immune to this bill. This is more extremely dirty politics, the union busting is just a bonus.
Quote from: Cain on February 20, 2011, 03:20:39 PM
Wheee!
www.istandwithscottwalker.com
Guess who is funding it? If you said the Koch Brothers (http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/18/koch-brothers-behind-wisconsin-effort-to-kill-public-unions/), award yourself a suitable prize. The Tea Party tards, who clearly have no idea of how played they are, are being mobilized to counter-protest.
The "istand" website seems to have been taken down. But I found this article as well:
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/02/19/koch-industries-wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-and-the-labor-unions/
wasn't Wisconsin the state with the teachers union who tried to get a judge to order the school board to put viagra back on it's prescription drug list at a cost that would have paid for 10 teacher salaries per year?
Milwalkee or Madison I think? where's my link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health/
there's my link.
Need to get their priorities straight IMO and making themselves look like fools to the public doesn't help their cause.
Cause God forbid health plans include the medicine necessary to have functional bodies.
...yeah, I wouldn't want to be in the business of parsing what's "covered" and what's "not" for insurance companies. Fuck that. You have to have a special kind of coldness in the depths of your soul to do that job.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 21, 2011, 08:57:53 PM
wasn't Wisconsin the state with the teachers union who tried to get a judge to order the school board to put viagra back on it's prescription drug list at a cost that would have paid for 10 teacher salaries per year?
Milwalkee or Madison I think? where's my link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health/
there's my link.
Need to get their priorities straight IMO and making themselves look like fools to the public doesn't help their cause.
This is not relevant. The bill at hand strips them of the right to have a union and teachers need a union to protect them from vengeful administration, as do the other groups threatened by this.
Hovercat,
watched thirty teachers be fired without regard to tenure, qualifications, or student test scores
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 21, 2011, 08:57:53 PM
wasn't Wisconsin the state with the teachers union who tried to get a judge to order the school board to put viagra back on it's prescription drug list at a cost that would have paid for 10 teacher salaries per year?
Milwalkee or Madison I think? where's my link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health/
there's my link.
Need to get their priorities straight IMO and making themselves look like fools to the public doesn't help their cause.
Fighting for collective bargaining sure makes them look like fools.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 21, 2011, 08:57:53 PM
wasn't Wisconsin the state with the teachers union who tried to get a judge to order the school board to put viagra back on it's prescription drug list at a cost that would have paid for 10 teacher salaries per year?
Milwalkee or Madison I think? where's my link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health/
there's my link.
Need to get their priorities straight IMO and making themselves look like fools to the public doesn't help their cause.
Erectile dysfunction is a disease. Therefore it should be covered by your jobs healthcare.
Aside from your sophomoric amusement at the concept of Viagra I dont see what is so funny about that.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 22, 2011, 04:42:33 AM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 21, 2011, 08:57:53 PM
wasn't Wisconsin the state with the teachers union who tried to get a judge to order the school board to put viagra back on it's prescription drug list at a cost that would have paid for 10 teacher salaries per year?
Milwalkee or Madison I think? where's my link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38596955/ns/health-sexual_health/
there's my link.
Need to get their priorities straight IMO and making themselves look like fools to the public doesn't help their cause.
Erectile dysfunction is a disease. Therefore it should be covered by your jobs healthcare.
Aside from your sophomoric amusement at the concept of Viagra I dont see what is so funny about that.
:cn:
unless you're using the term really loosely, I believe the word disorder is more appropriate. And there are multiple treatments for it other than just eating a drug. But really, just taking a drug is the easiest way to "cure" it so let's spare no expense or effort. Just medicate it away like the commercials tell you to.
I've already considered the "promotion of general well being" argument and agree, I just think it should be at the person's own expense if they need it, not charged to the public at a cost that would fund the salaries of 10 additional teachers. While I'm sure it sometimes SEEMS like if you don't have sex, you'll die, that's hardly the reality.
QuoteFighting for collective bargaining sure makes them look like fools.
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
That. Exactly. If I didn't know, for a fact, that the unions here make demands that would, literally, bankrupt the university, I'd be a lot more patient with them in general.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
We heard what you said. You said "Unions are bad, and I'm going to pick one example of stupidity and paint them all with that brush."
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
We heard what you said. You said "Unions are bad, and I'm going to pick one example of stupidity and paint them all with that brush."
sort of like what you do with anyone to the right of Trotsky?
(I love exaggeration for the sake of an argument)
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
We heard what you said. You said "Unions are bad, and I'm going to pick one example of stupidity and paint them all with that brush."
sort of like what you do with anyone to the right of Trotsky?
(I love exaggeration for the sake of an argument)
Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig, and he had no sense of humor. He wasn't
serious about having a good time. Stalin tried to help him with that, but he got all butthurt and ran off to Mexico, where he was killed by Ramón Mercader in a fight over a can-can dancer. Serves the reactionary swine right.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
We heard what you said. You said "Unions are bad, and I'm going to pick one example of stupidity and paint them all with that brush."
sort of like what you do with anyone to the right of Trotsky?
(I love exaggeration for the sake of an argument)
Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig, and he had no sense of humor. He wasn't serious about having a good time. Stalin tried to help him with that, but he got all butthurt and ran off to Mexico, where he was killed by Ramón Mercader in a fight over a can-can dancer. Serves the reactionary swine right.
I don't care what anyone says about you Rev. you're alright. a right proper mindfuck of a humorist. I respect that in a person.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 02:08:45 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 02:06:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 01:09:23 PM
Not what I said. I said what one union has collectively bargained for makes that union look like fools. They shouldn't have that ability stripped from them, they should use it more wisely.
We heard what you said. You said "Unions are bad, and I'm going to pick one example of stupidity and paint them all with that brush."
sort of like what you do with anyone to the right of Trotsky?
(I love exaggeration for the sake of an argument)
Trotsky was a counter-revolutionary pig, and he had no sense of humor. He wasn't serious about having a good time. Stalin tried to help him with that, but he got all butthurt and ran off to Mexico, where he was killed by Ramón Mercader in a fight over a can-can dancer. Serves the reactionary swine right.
I don't care what anyone says about you Rev. you're alright. a right proper mindfuck of a humorist. I respect that in a person.
Tell anyone that, and I'll call you a liar. :lulz:
I think the point that regardless of what the Wisconsin Governor does to the unions, he wont be able to fix the deficit, should probably be the central one.
Also, I followed with some amusement on a blog an argument between Standard Libertarians (ie not Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html)) and Marxists, with the latter baiting the former for not supporting the right to free assembly and bargaining etc. The Libertarians responded that individual bargaining was cool, it was collective bargaining which is the problem.
OK. So, if we accept that is the case, isn't a company in negotiations with its workers collectively bargaining on behalf of the management and owners/shareholders? Its not like John Galt is out there on his own against the teeming masses of trade union bargaining officials. Anyway, just thought I'd share that, as it seemed one of the strangest arguments against unions I've seen in, well, the past several years on the internet, and that includes the theories involving David Icke.
Quote from: Cain on February 22, 2011, 02:16:47 PM
I think the point that regardless of what the Wisconsin Governor does to the unions, he wont be able to fix the deficit, should probably be the central one.
Also, I followed with some amusement on a blog an argument between Standard Libertarians (ie not Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html)) and Marxists, with the latter baiting the former for not supporting the right to free assembly and bargaining etc. The Libertarians responded that individual bargaining was cool, it was collective bargaining which is the problem.
OK. So, if we accept that is the case, isn't a company in negotiations with its workers collectively bargaining on behalf of the management and owners/shareholders? Its not like John Galt is out there on his own against the teeming masses of trade union bargaining officials. Anyway, just thought I'd share that, as it seemed one of the strangest arguments against unions I've seen in, well, the past several years on the internet, and that includes the theories involving David Icke.
I've been arguing that point for years, Cain. I'm either told the arrangement is "different" or they just go away.
There's been a few exceptions, though.
Quote from: Cain on February 22, 2011, 02:16:47 PM
I think the point that regardless of what the Wisconsin Governor does to the unions, he wont be able to fix the deficit, should probably be the central one.
Also, I followed with some amusement on a blog an argument between Standard Libertarians (ie not Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html)) and Marxists, with the latter baiting the former for not supporting the right to free assembly and bargaining etc. The Libertarians responded that individual bargaining was cool, it was collective bargaining which is the problem.
OK. So, if we accept that is the case, isn't a company in negotiations with its workers collectively bargaining on behalf of the management and owners/shareholders? Its not like John Galt is out there on his own against the teeming masses of trade union bargaining officials. Anyway, just thought I'd share that, as it seemed one of the strangest arguments against unions I've seen in, well, the past several years on the internet, and that includes the theories involving David Icke.
they (the libertarians) made the wrong argument IMO. collective bargaining in the private sector is different than the public sector. private sector employees are bargaining for a larger share of profits. public sector employees are bargaining for a larger piece of the tax base (which is going to buckle under the weight of baby boomer retirement) as government doesn't produce a profit in the classic sense. They still shouldn't be ham strung on bringing things to the table for negotiation, but they should understand their inherent difference vs private sector unions.
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
right, you should raise them. that doesn't squeeze at all.
The rich are doing just fine right now, no reason to give them a break.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
right, you should raise them. that doesn't squeeze at all.
You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
Also, looking ahead 10-20 years might not hurt. That means not turning teaching into a WalMart-type job.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
right, you should raise them. that doesn't squeeze at all.
Does the average family make $325K/year? Because that's the break even point at which income tax relief outpaces increases in other taxes.
And a little hint, here: The upper class doesn't actually purchase that much stuff. The majority of purchasing is done by the middle & working classes...Who have been HURT by the tax cuts, when it's all said and done.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:43:36 PM
The rich are doing just fine right now, no reason to give them a break.
I'm curious what you think would be a fair break down of tax rates for income brackets. not trolling, honestly curious.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 22, 2011, 07:03:26 PM
You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.
it lifted everyone's tax burden. you appear to believe we should have raised the taxes on just the rich. Is that a magic pill that will fix the problems?
definitely needs to be something done about the AMT though, it served it's purpose but is now catching too many lower income earners IMO.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
Also, looking ahead 10-20 years might not hurt. That means not turning teaching into a WalMart-type job.
That, I believe, is the larger elephant in the room. I assume you're talking about teacher salaries. I hear a lot about it from the lady since she's finally doing the math on what she's going to be making for the next few years, while still paying off her Masters.
And there should really be a longer outlook planned and saved for where possible. The idea that well we'll just raise taxes on future tax payers to cover what we're spending now is a really big part of the problem.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:05:43 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: Requia ☣ on February 22, 2011, 06:25:19 PM
If you want to balance the budget stop cutting taxes when there's already a deficit, don't squeeze people that do a necessary job.
right, you should raise them. that doesn't squeeze at all.
Does the average family make $325K/year? Because that's the break even point at which income tax relief outpaces increases in other taxes.
And a little hint, here: The upper class doesn't actually purchase that much stuff. The majority of purchasing is done by the middle & working classes...Who have been HURT by the tax cuts, when it's all said and done.
Do the upper class wear fewer clothes? do they eat less food? (obviously not having an ass ton of kids would mean yes)
they do tend to be nonsmokers, fewer drinkers, and less lottery ticket buying. Here's a study by The Federal Reserve on The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 that showed that the upper income spectrum were inclined to spend the child tax credit rather than pay down debt, something the lower income brackets mostly did.
It's pretty dry unless you're a bit of a wonk, but worth a read IMO.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200532/200532pap.pdf
the argument that the rich spend less, I believe, has a bit of a fatal flaw. Keynesian multiplier concept when applied to the entire economy rather than to individual people, assumes that income not immediately spent is not spent at all. Saving is not hoarding and while lower incomes will probably spend more on consumables immediately, buying stocks and bonds or depositing money in a bank doesn't mean money not spent, it means money not spent immediately on consumables. It still gets spent, just usually on investments.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
it lifted everyone's tax burden.
You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
it lifted everyone's tax burden.
You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.
why yes, I do. I don't look for loopholes either. We're talking the income tax, yes?
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
Do the upper class wear fewer clothes? do they eat less food? (obviously not having an ass ton of kids would mean yes)
they do tend to be nonsmokers, fewer drinkers, and less lottery ticket buying. Here's a study by The Federal Reserve on The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 that showed that the upper income spectrum were inclined to spend the child tax credit rather than pay down debt, something the lower income brackets mostly did.
It's pretty dry unless you're a bit of a wonk, but worth a read IMO.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2005/200532/200532pap.pdf
the argument that the rich spend less, I believe, has a bit of a fatal flaw. Keynesian multiplier concept when applied to the entire economy rather than to individual people, assumes that income not immediately spent is not spent at all. Saving is not hoarding and while lower incomes will probably spend more on consumables immediately, buying stocks and bonds or depositing money in a bank doesn't mean money not spent, it means money not spent immediately on consumables. It still gets spent, just usually on investments.
Rich people buy less for two reasons:
1. There's less OF them, and
2. The shit they buy is typically higher quality, and lasts a hell of a lot longer.
But there's no sense explaining that to someone who quotes witchdoctory (econ classes).
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
it lifted everyone's tax burden.
You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.
why yes, I do. I don't look for loopholes either. We're talking the income tax, yes?
No. I'm talking total tax burden. If you make less than $325,000/year, you paid MORE in taxes, as state and municipal taxation had to go up to offset the decrease in federal spending.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 22, 2011, 07:03:26 PM
You appear to have swallowed the misinformation that the Bush tax cuts (that were recently extended) were designed to lift the middle class burden.
it lifted everyone's tax burden. you appear to believe we should have raised the taxes on just the rich. Is that a magic pill that will fix the problems?
(http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg)
Yeah... Personally, I think it's a magic pill that will solve a
lot of problems.
As for a "fair" tax rate, the mode income in the United States is a whopping $19,800/year.
3M's CEO made $17,359,336 in that same year.
1. Which has the ABILITY to pay taxes, and
2. Who is benefiting from the system more?
So tell me, should we reduce the wages via taxation of those making $9.90/hour - barely making rent at that rate, or the guys making $8,500/hour?
The newest changes to the tax tables shifted part of the burden, all right. Shifted it from the mid-range incomes to the LOW-range incomes.
I've been listening to student employees bitch all year. They never had taxes withheld before, even filing their W-4, single-zero, because they didn't make enough to have taxes withheld. Now, they have taxes withheld, darn near ALL of them. These are kids making around $200 in a two-week period.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:58:57 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:56:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 07:55:04 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 22, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
it lifted everyone's tax burden.
You don't actually pay taxes, I'm guessing.
why yes, I do. I don't look for loopholes either. We're talking the income tax, yes?
No. I'm talking total tax burden. If you make less than $325,000/year, you paid MORE in taxes, as state and municipal taxation had to go up to offset the decrease in federal spending.
property taxes went up in florida. That effected everyone who has a house. I'm out from under an upside down mortgage now and renting so that doesn't currently directly effect me, though it will in the future. There haven't been any other increases that I'm aware of. We don't have a state income tax. Of course, inflated prices of food, gasoline, and rising utility costs are producing the same result on my paycheck so.. conceded, more or less.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
Yeah... Personally, I think it's a magic pill that will solve a lot of problems.
what are those problems you think will be solved? balanced budget? will Washington use that money to pay off the entire debt load? income disparity aside, do you really trust Washington D.C. to do anything differently if they had the sudden windfall that would come from putting the tax rate for the ultra rich back at 70ish%?
here are some leaflets from the Ohio protests
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49324099/Ohio-Solidarity?in_collection=2874930
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49323112/Defend-Ohio-Leaflet?in_collection=2874930
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 23, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
what are those problems you think will be solved? balanced budget? will Washington use that money to pay off the entire debt load? income disparity aside, do you really trust Washington D.C. to do anything differently if they had the sudden windfall that would come from putting the tax rate for the ultra rich back at 70ish%?
Well tax cuts for the rich sure haven't increased anybody's quality of life.
Various budget crises are fueling the unrest in Madison - according to one of those leaflets "In the past five years, tax cuts for corporations and the rich have reduced state revenues by $2 billion per year." --- how come worker's rights are on the table, but taxing the rich isn't?
Why should the poor and middle class pay for the damage that the financial sector has caused?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/walker_office_confirms_governor_fell_for_koch_pran.php
A man pretending to be one of the Koch brothers prank calls the Governor.
When fake Koch suggests "planting some trouble-makers" in the protests Walker responds:
QuoteWell, the only problem, because we thought about that, my only gut reaction to that would be, right now, the lawmakers I've talked to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this. The teachers union did some polling and focus groups, I think, and found out that the public turned on them the minute they closed school down for a couple days. The guys we have left are largely from out of state, and I keep dismissing it in my press comment saying, 'eh, they're mostly from out of state.'"
[...]
I'm saying hey, 'we can handle this, people can protest, this is Madison, you know, full of the 60s liberals.' Let them protest. It's not going to affect us. And as long as we go back to our homes, and the majority of people are telling us we're doing the right thing, let them protest all they want.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 23, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
property taxes went up in florida. That effected everyone who has a house. I'm out from under an upside down mortgage now and renting so that doesn't currently directly effect me, though it will in the future. There haven't been any other increases that I'm aware of.
What, you don't own a car?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2011, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 23, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
property taxes went up in florida. That effected everyone who has a house. I'm out from under an upside down mortgage now and renting so that doesn't currently directly effect me, though it will in the future. There haven't been any other increases that I'm aware of.
What, you don't own a car?
Jeep wrangler actually. It really likes gasoline. but that's the price I pay for a 6 cylinder.
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 25, 2011, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2011, 06:18:54 PM
Quote from: Pickled Starfish on February 23, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
property taxes went up in florida. That effected everyone who has a house. I'm out from under an upside down mortgage now and renting so that doesn't currently directly effect me, though it will in the future. There haven't been any other increases that I'm aware of.
What, you don't own a car?
Jeep wrangler actually. It really likes gasoline. but that's the price I pay for a 6 cylinder.
And how much of that price is gas tax? And how does that effect shipping costs for things like food?
Property taxes have gone up to cover the reduction of title I spending.
State sales taxes (among plenty of other taxes) have gone up to cover reductions in road spending, police spending, etc.
County and municipal taxes, motor vehicle fees, etc, have gone up.
But at least those poor rich people have caught a break. They have a hell of a time.
Payroll taxes have gone up, too.
Good thing most of the elite rich don't actually receive a salary, per se. Did you know commisions from hedge fund profits are tax exempt, even if they earn millions?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 25, 2011, 09:15:36 PM
Payroll taxes have gone up, too.
Teach you to need an income.
That said, I don't mind paying my share. I overpaid the government all year, and got some back.
I just want those who benefitted the most from this country to give back to the system that allowed them to get so fucking rich.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 25, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
That said, I don't mind paying my share. I overpaid the government all year, and got some back.
I just want those who benefitted the most from this country to give back to the system that allowed them to get so fucking rich.
Well, so do the teabaggers and the libertards.
It's just that they want the rich to give back in exactly the same proportion as the poor.
This would require a tax rate that would drive the middle class into the working class, the working class into the lower class, and the lower class under a bridge.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 25, 2011, 09:25:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 25, 2011, 09:21:06 PM
That said, I don't mind paying my share. I overpaid the government all year, and got some back.
I just want those who benefitted the most from this country to give back to the system that allowed them to get so fucking rich.
Well, so do the teabaggers and the libertards.
It's just that they want the rich to give back in exactly the same proportion as the poor.
This would require a tax rate that would drive the middle class into the working class, the working class into the lower class, and the lower class under a bridge.
I don't want to live under a bridge. :cry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0VProvuAo&feature=player_embedded
Holy shit.
Ughh and just read the comments:
QuoteI starting to become proud of America again. The good guys won one. We're just 49 states and a birth certificate away from normal.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 25, 2011, 11:42:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f0VProvuAo&feature=player_embedded
Holy shit.
Ughh and just read the comments:
QuoteI starting to become proud of America again. The good guys won one. We're just 49 states and a birth certificate away from normal.
Oh fucking Christ. :facepalm:
QuoteOh my God, that was funny. Those union types deserve getting their communist collective bargaining deal ripped out from under them after living so high on the hog for so long.
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 26, 2011, 12:57:47 AM
QuoteOh my God, that was funny. Those union types deserve getting their communist collective bargaining deal ripped out from under them after living so high on the hog for so long.
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
gtg bnmhnmjhjuhhy7
ETA: I know I promised to stop doing that, but... there is no other way to express my feelings. I think my forehead is bleeding now...
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 26, 2011, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 26, 2011, 12:57:47 AM
QuoteOh my God, that was funny. Those union types deserve getting their communist collective bargaining deal ripped out from under them after living so high on the hog for so long.
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
gtg bnmhnmjhjuhhy7
ETA: I know I promised to stop doing that, but... there is no other way to express my feelings. I think my forehead is bleeding now...
What pains me so much about that comment is he didnt even spout the lie that the the bill had anything to do with budget cuts. He knew what it was about, he honestly thinks giving unions the right to bargain their contract is a bad idea.
HE THINKS UNIONS WITHIN THEMSELVES ARE COMMUNIST AND ARE A BAD IDEA.
Also that comment was in the "Highest Rated Comments" section.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 26, 2011, 01:02:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on February 26, 2011, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 26, 2011, 12:57:47 AM
QuoteOh my God, that was funny. Those union types deserve getting their communist collective bargaining deal ripped out from under them after living so high on the hog for so long.
UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
gtg bnmhnmjhjuhhy7
ETA: I know I promised to stop doing that, but... there is no other way to express my feelings. I think my forehead is bleeding now...
What pains me so much about that comment is he didnt even spout the lie that the the bill had anything to do with budget cuts. He knew what it was about, he honestly thinks giving unions the right to bargain their contract is a bad idea.
HE THINKS UNIONS WITHIN THEMSELVES ARE COMMUNIST AND ARE A BAD IDEA.
Also that comment was in the "Highest Rated Comments" section.
I know, I know. I don't even fucking....
:lulz: I hope it bites him in the ass.
It will. Of course, it'll bite the rest of us in the ass too.
Incidentally, while everyone was lulzing it up about the Fake Koch Phonecall, I think they missed a very important and rather scary part of the conversation. When the ersatz Koch suggested using agent provocateurs in the crowd to create a false impression that State Troopers were needed to storm the capitol, Scott Walker replied:
"You know, well, the only problem with that — because we thought about that. . . . My only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has to settle to avoid all these problems."
Which is pretty much only a step up from actually being willing to go ahead with such a plan. I'll put this as plainly as I can: Scott Walker is only not willing to kill peaceful protestors because it may prevent his policies being passed. Scott Walker is, hypothetically, perfectly happy to deploy potentially lethal state power against people who are in political disagreement with him.
Incidentally, I can think of another democratically elected leader who used the police to round up opposition politicians in order to influence a sham voting procedure.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 22, 2011, 02:18:55 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 22, 2011, 02:16:47 PM
I think the point that regardless of what the Wisconsin Governor does to the unions, he wont be able to fix the deficit, should probably be the central one.
Also, I followed with some amusement on a blog an argument between Standard Libertarians (ie not Kevin Carson (http://www.mutualist.org/id10.html)) and Marxists, with the latter baiting the former for not supporting the right to free assembly and bargaining etc. The Libertarians responded that individual bargaining was cool, it was collective bargaining which is the problem.
OK. So, if we accept that is the case, isn't a company in negotiations with its workers collectively bargaining on behalf of the management and owners/shareholders? Its not like John Galt is out there on his own against the teeming masses of trade union bargaining officials. Anyway, just thought I'd share that, as it seemed one of the strangest arguments against unions I've seen in, well, the past several years on the internet, and that includes the theories involving David Icke.
I've been arguing that point for years, Cain. I'm either told the arrangement is "different" or they just go away.
There's been a few exceptions, though.
I've found two exceptions so far, E.D. Kain (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ordinary-gentlemen/~3/fDAmSF1mdvk/) and Kevin Carson (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/05/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-xvii.html), both who are more thoughtful than the average internet libertarian and tend towards the left end of the libertarian spectrum. There are probably some more agreements at the C4SS.org site too, but by and large, they are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Reason magazine, for example, have gone so far to attack Reddit as some kind of pro-union Socialist Commie Liberal website, which is like attacking Youtube for "promoting" 9/11 truthers.
Quote from: Cain on February 27, 2011, 12:48:33 PM
Incidentally, while everyone was lulzing it up about the Fake Koch Phonecall, I think they missed a very important and rather scary part of the conversation. When the ersatz Koch suggested using agent provocateurs in the crowd to create a false impression that State Troopers were needed to storm the capitol, Scott Walker replied:
"You know, well, the only problem with that — because we thought about that. . . . My only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has to settle to avoid all these problems."
Which is pretty much only a step up from actually being willing to go ahead with such a plan. I'll put this as plainly as I can: Scott Walker is only not willing to kill peaceful protestors because it may prevent his policies being passed. Scott Walker is, hypothetically, perfectly happy to deploy potentially lethal state power against people who are in political disagreement with him.
Incidentally, I can think of another democratically elected leader who used the police to round up opposition politicians in order to influence a sham voting procedure.
I already pointed out something similar.
Quote from: Lord Glittersnatch on February 24, 2011, 08:12:10 AM
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/02/walker_office_confirms_governor_fell_for_koch_pran.php
A man pretending to be one of the Koch brothers prank calls the Governor.
When fake Koch suggests "planting some trouble-makers" in the protests Walker responds:
QuoteWell, the only problem, because we thought about that, my only gut reaction to that would be, right now, the lawmakers I've talked to have just completely had it with them. The public is not really fond of this. The teachers union did some polling and focus groups, I think, and found out that the public turned on them the minute they closed school down for a couple days. The guys we have left are largely from out of state, and I keep dismissing it in my press comment saying, 'eh, they're mostly from out of state.'"
[...]
I'm saying hey, 'we can handle this, people can protest, this is Madison, you know, full of the 60s liberals.' Let them protest. It's not going to affect us. And as long as we go back to our homes, and the majority of people are telling us we're doing the right thing, let them protest all they want.
This is almost historical de ja vu. Almost, because the cops seem to give a shit.
Cain, that's a great point. When I heard the clip on the radio, I was wondering why none of the pundits (the liberal ones) weren't jumping all over that part. "Yeah we considered it..."
Fuck.
Johnnybrainwash has some good thoughts as to why that isn't the most troubling part of the phonecall:
http://www.dysnomia.us/2011/02/scott-walker-and-the-fake-david-koch/
I assume you've heard plenty about this story by now, but have you listened to the whole tape or read the transcript for yourself? You should check it out if you haven't.
There's lots of juicy stuff in here, but forget all the talk about baseball bats and provocateurs. The caller tries to bait Walker with these suggestions, but he doesn't bite. He's sucking up to the boss, so he doesn't contradict him, but he does deflect the baseball bat line, and he explains his reasoning for not wanting to provoke the protesters:
QuoteMy only fear would be if there's a ruckus caused is that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has to settle to avoid all these problems. You know, whereas I've said, hey, we can handle this, people can protest, this is Madison, you know, full of the '60s liberals. Let 'em protest. It's not going to affect us. And as long as we go back to our homes and the majority of people are telling us we're doing the right thing, let 'em protest all they want. So that's my gut reaction. I think it's actually good if they're constant, they're noisy, but they're quiet, nothing happens. Sooner or later the media stops finding them interesting.
It's not a ringing defense of the right to assemble, but it's a plain statement that he doesn't agree with sending in the troublemakers. Good for the Madison police chief who's speaking up about this, but it's not the main story- it's a distraction.
One more distraction is at the very end of the call, where the fake Koch invites Walker to California to show him a good time, and lets it be known that he has vested interests in the outcome. It would be an ethics violation if Walker took him up on the trip, but it's purely hypothetical. People are quoting Walker's first few words after the "vested interests" comment, but in the context of his full response, they're pretty much filler:
QuoteMurphy: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: Once you crush these bastards I'll fly you out to Cali (California) and really show you a good time.
Walker: All right, that would be outstanding. Thanks for all the support in helping us move the cause forward, and we appreciate it, and we're doing it the just and right thing for the right reasons and it's all about getting our freedoms back.
Murphy: Absolutely. And, you know, we have a little bit of a vested interest as well. [Laughs]
Walker: Well that's just it, the bottom line is we're gonna get the world moving here 'cause it's the right thing to do.
Twice the fake Koch tries to bring it around to money or rewards, and twice Walker comes back by talking about doing it because it's the right thing to do. Anyone who's quoting the "Well, that's just it" part out of context is lying to you.
So what's worth paying attention to?
The good stuff is how he lays out the pressure tactics and trickery he's got lined up. The discussion of national strategy will make a good opposition ad when he claims to have the state's interests in mind.
Walker does solicit "Koch" to get "a message put out" for his supporters in swing areas, presumably in an election. Koch controls political funds that can't legally be spent in coordination with candidates or parties. There could be a campaign finance violation here, but the language is probably too imprecise.
My favorite, however, is that Walker thinks the definitive moment of Reagan's presidency was when he fired the air traffic controllers. This was apparently the first crack in the Berlin Wall. I kind of follow his logic, but no.
(Aside: Reagan didn't defeat the Soviet Union. George Kennan did it in the embassy with a telegram.)
The whole thing is very interesting and very worth reading, both for the inside view of Walker's strategy and for a demonstration of the poor quality of candidate the teabaggers can drum up. My sense is that Walker knows how to fight, but governing is completely beyond him. His administration will largely be a failure, but he could inflict a lot of damage on the way down if he's not stopped.
[link are in the article on Johnny's blogs]
The bit about Reagan was rather lulzy, especially since Reagan was the only President to have ever been a Union chief, and also supported unions in the Warsaw Pact states (Solidarity, anyone?). Of course, that hardly makes him a socialist radical, but there is the constant amusement in that modern conservatives do things Reagan historically advised against (torturing terrorists, trying to start nuclear arms races etc) and then claim he was their inspiration.
Quote from: Cain on February 28, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
The bit about Reagan was rather lulzy, especially since Reagan was the only President to have ever been a Union chief, and also supported unions in the Warsaw Pact states (Solidarity, anyone?). Of course, that hardly makes him a socialist radical, but there is the constant amusement in that modern conservatives do things Reagan historically advised against (torturing terrorists, trying to start nuclear arms races etc) and then claim he was their inspiration.
America's understanding of political history only goes back 6 months.
Hypocrisy in action.
Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, all of whom have been popping off about how awful unions are... are union members.
http://www.alternet.org/media/150054/confirmed%3A_union-bashing_right-wing_media_stars_hannity,_limbaugh_and_o%27reilly_are_afl-cio_union-affiliated_members
Quote from: Luna on February 28, 2011, 01:41:07 PM
Hypocrisy in action.
Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, all of whom have been popping off about how awful unions are... are union members.
http://www.alternet.org/media/150054/confirmed%3A_union-bashing_right-wing_media_stars_hannity,_limbaugh_and_o%27reilly_are_afl-cio_union-affiliated_members
*GASP* Shock and awe.
:lulz:
Anonymous is back, and just targeted the Koch brothers.
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2286701/entry/9/
QuoteThe online hacktivist group "Anonymous" has targeted Koch-backed conservative group Americans for Prosperity, rendering the site "intermittently unavailable" on Sunday evening, reports Politico. After unleashing a spate of denial-of-service attacks, "Anonymous" distributed a triumphalist press release addressed to the "Citizens of the United States of America": "It has come to our attention that the brothers, David and Charles Koch—the billionaire owners of Koch Industries—have long attempted to usurp American Democracy," it says, adding: "Anonymous cannot ignore the plight of the citizen-workers of Wisconsin, or the opportunity to fight for the people in America's broken political system." While this infusion of quasi-Marxist rhetoric may or may not help the cause in Wisconsin, that's not the only benefit. Politico says the DNS attack "will likely also help establish AfP among conservatives as the key group at [Wisconsin] Governor Scott Walker's side."
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 28, 2011, 03:28:45 AM
Cain, that's a great point. When I heard the clip on the radio, I was wondering why none of the pundits (the liberal ones) weren't jumping all over that part. "Yeah we considered it..."
Fuck.
Pantywaists.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on February 28, 2011, 03:28:45 AM
Cain, that's a great point. When I heard the clip on the radio, I was wondering why none of the pundits (the liberal ones) weren't jumping all over that part. "Yeah we considered it..."
Fuck.
I think Stephen Colbert nailed that portion last week, actually.
Quote from: Cain on February 28, 2011, 07:10:28 AM
The bit about Reagan was rather lulzy, especially since Reagan was the only President to have ever been a Union chief, and also supported unions in the Warsaw Pact states (Solidarity, anyone?). Of course, that hardly makes him a socialist radical, but there is the constant amusement in that modern conservatives do things Reagan historically advised against (torturing terrorists, trying to start nuclear arms races etc) and then claim he was their inspiration.
Yeah, he was kind of an unconventional union rep, though, if that HBO documentary is to be believed. He was Mr. Corporatist America even back then. His left-leanings in politics were VERY short-lived. He literally stopped thinking "the little guy" was important at all once he became rich/famous. And he was never as famous as he wanted to be until he started politicking. His union rep job was part of his entree into that spectrum, though he was tantamount to a used car salesman by that time, hawking GE wares on TV every night, year after year.
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
(http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg)
ooh ooh, did someone say MODAL income? :D
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7413/2008usincomedistributio.png)
Explanation: in order to get a nice histogram, I took a shitload of data from www.bls.gov. They got a
per county table of income groups (types of jobs), how many people there are in it and how much they earn in that county. That was fine-grained enough for me to allow to massage aggregate data into a different shape, in this case a histogram. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23807.msg812967#msg812967)
The 2008 modal income is the point at the peak of the histogram:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 07:23:14 PMthere's two bars highest, they represent $22k-$24k with 9.82 million jobs and $24k-$26k with 9.85 million jobs.
(I spent over 3 hours last year mining bls.gov to create that graph, so I'm going to milk it for all it's worth :) )
nice graph!
\
:judge:
Quote from: Triple Zero on March 04, 2011, 07:08:33 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on February 22, 2011, 08:07:36 PM
(http://www.onepennysheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg)
ooh ooh, did someone say MODAL income? :D
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/7413/2008usincomedistributio.png)
Explanation: in order to get a nice histogram, I took a shitload of data from www.bls.gov. They got a per county table of income groups (types of jobs), how many people there are in it and how much they earn in that county. That was fine-grained enough for me to allow to massage aggregate data into a different shape, in this case a histogram. (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=23807.msg812967#msg812967)
The 2008 modal income is the point at the peak of the histogram:
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 19, 2010, 07:23:14 PMthere's two bars highest, they represent $22k-$24k with 9.82 million jobs and $24k-$26k with 9.85 million jobs.
(I spent over 3 hours last year mining bls.gov to create that graph, so I'm going to milk it for all it's worth :) )
Very nice!
:mittens:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/04/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T2
Gov. Walker warns union of possible layoffs; Dem. assembly member tackled by police entering Capitol building.
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike." -Scott Walker, May 2nd, 2011
:lulz: :horrormirth: I can see him saying that, and getting away with it, too.