- This topic has 545 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 3 months ago by
afx114.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #678393March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #677251
jstoesz
Participant[quote=patb][quote=jstoesz]for the record I love NPR. Especially the This American Life and Radio Lab and planet money…programs. You all must check it out. Especially on your 6 hour drives to the mountains (maybe that is just my former self talking). But why in Gods name is my tax money going to pay for it? To be honest, I don’t even mind the lefties…There is some damn fine programming. Oh and their music website is absolutely amazing![/quote]
It’s called establishing culture.
Sure NPR could go commercial, and next thing you know it’s 18 minutes of ads an hour.
why do we spend tax money on parks, libraries and fountains?
Look, where my tax money shouldn’t go is to wall street. I have no problem with it going to fix the things I need.[/quote]
I want me free stuff and I want it now!
Excellent use of the word need…
March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #677309Participant[quote=patb][quote=jstoesz]for the record I love NPR. Especially the This American Life and Radio Lab and planet money…programs. You all must check it out. Especially on your 6 hour drives to the mountains (maybe that is just my former self talking). But why in Gods name is my tax money going to pay for it? To be honest, I don’t even mind the lefties…There is some damn fine programming. Oh and their music website is absolutely amazing![/quote]
It’s called establishing culture.
Sure NPR could go commercial, and next thing you know it’s 18 minutes of ads an hour.
why do we spend tax money on parks, libraries and fountains?
Look, where my tax money shouldn’t go is to wall street. I have no problem with it going to fix the things I need.[/quote]
I want me free stuff and I want it now!
Excellent use of the word need…
March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #677916Participant[quote=patb][quote=jstoesz]for the record I love NPR. Especially the This American Life and Radio Lab and planet money…programs. You all must check it out. Especially on your 6 hour drives to the mountains (maybe that is just my former self talking). But why in Gods name is my tax money going to pay for it? To be honest, I don’t even mind the lefties…There is some damn fine programming. Oh and their music website is absolutely amazing![/quote]
It’s called establishing culture.
Sure NPR could go commercial, and next thing you know it’s 18 minutes of ads an hour.
why do we spend tax money on parks, libraries and fountains?
Look, where my tax money shouldn’t go is to wall street. I have no problem with it going to fix the things I need.[/quote]
I want me free stuff and I want it now!
Excellent use of the word need…
March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #678055Participant[quote=patb][quote=jstoesz]for the record I love NPR. Especially the This American Life and Radio Lab and planet money…programs. You all must check it out. Especially on your 6 hour drives to the mountains (maybe that is just my former self talking). But why in Gods name is my tax money going to pay for it? To be honest, I don’t even mind the lefties…There is some damn fine programming. Oh and their music website is absolutely amazing![/quote]
It’s called establishing culture.
Sure NPR could go commercial, and next thing you know it’s 18 minutes of ads an hour.
why do we spend tax money on parks, libraries and fountains?
Look, where my tax money shouldn’t go is to wall street. I have no problem with it going to fix the things I need.[/quote]
I want me free stuff and I want it now!
Excellent use of the word need…
March 15, 2011 at 5:11 PM #678398Participant[quote=patb][quote=jstoesz]for the record I love NPR. Especially the This American Life and Radio Lab and planet money…programs. You all must check it out. Especially on your 6 hour drives to the mountains (maybe that is just my former self talking). But why in Gods name is my tax money going to pay for it? To be honest, I don’t even mind the lefties…There is some damn fine programming. Oh and their music website is absolutely amazing![/quote]
It’s called establishing culture.
Sure NPR could go commercial, and next thing you know it’s 18 minutes of ads an hour.
why do we spend tax money on parks, libraries and fountains?
Look, where my tax money shouldn’t go is to wall street. I have no problem with it going to fix the things I need.[/quote]
I want me free stuff and I want it now!
Excellent use of the word need…
March 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677256CA renter
Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter]
Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.
[/quote]
Why?
And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.
I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.[/quote]
Why? Because the cuts won’t be as drastic if we force the financial industry to take the first loss. We can’t know what we’re really dealing with until after they’ve taken the first loss.
None of the union members I know of want Joe Sixpack to pay for the losses. Go to the rallies, and you won’t see a single sign saying, “raise property taxes,” or, “raise sales taxes.” What you will see are lots and lots of signs expressing anger and frustration with the bailouts, and how unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
You keep trying to make this about J6, but it has nothing to do with him/her. This is a battle between labor and capital; J6 is just being drawn into it by the capitalists/financial elite because the elite have the money/power, but they don’t have the sheer numbers that the unions do; and, ultimately, they need the numbers. That’s why they are trying to reframe this into a “unions vs. taxpayer” thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
There is another issue behind the attempts to dismantle unions, and that’s the desire of the powerful to privatize everything and sell public assets to a handful of very wealthy folks who want to strip all revenue generating assets from the government (and all the people who benefit from govt services) and funnel it to a very small number of people. If the unions are decimated, be prepared to pay a whole lot more for all “public” services. I think a lot of people tend to underestimate all the benefits we derive from a well-financed, benevolent, fairly non-corrupt government.
Again, if this low/no tax Libertarian Utopia exists, can somebody show us an example of it? I’ve never seen any evidence that shows low/no taxes and a weak government provide for a successful economy and thriving middle class. If there’s an example of out there, please let us know. In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.
See for yourself:
March 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677314Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter]
Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.
[/quote]
Why?
And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.
I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.[/quote]
Why? Because the cuts won’t be as drastic if we force the financial industry to take the first loss. We can’t know what we’re really dealing with until after they’ve taken the first loss.
None of the union members I know of want Joe Sixpack to pay for the losses. Go to the rallies, and you won’t see a single sign saying, “raise property taxes,” or, “raise sales taxes.” What you will see are lots and lots of signs expressing anger and frustration with the bailouts, and how unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
You keep trying to make this about J6, but it has nothing to do with him/her. This is a battle between labor and capital; J6 is just being drawn into it by the capitalists/financial elite because the elite have the money/power, but they don’t have the sheer numbers that the unions do; and, ultimately, they need the numbers. That’s why they are trying to reframe this into a “unions vs. taxpayer” thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
There is another issue behind the attempts to dismantle unions, and that’s the desire of the powerful to privatize everything and sell public assets to a handful of very wealthy folks who want to strip all revenue generating assets from the government (and all the people who benefit from govt services) and funnel it to a very small number of people. If the unions are decimated, be prepared to pay a whole lot more for all “public” services. I think a lot of people tend to underestimate all the benefits we derive from a well-financed, benevolent, fairly non-corrupt government.
Again, if this low/no tax Libertarian Utopia exists, can somebody show us an example of it? I’ve never seen any evidence that shows low/no taxes and a weak government provide for a successful economy and thriving middle class. If there’s an example of out there, please let us know. In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.
See for yourself:
March 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM #677921Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter]
Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.
[/quote]
Why?
And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.
I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.[/quote]
Why? Because the cuts won’t be as drastic if we force the financial industry to take the first loss. We can’t know what we’re really dealing with until after they’ve taken the first loss.
None of the union members I know of want Joe Sixpack to pay for the losses. Go to the rallies, and you won’t see a single sign saying, “raise property taxes,” or, “raise sales taxes.” What you will see are lots and lots of signs expressing anger and frustration with the bailouts, and how unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
You keep trying to make this about J6, but it has nothing to do with him/her. This is a battle between labor and capital; J6 is just being drawn into it by the capitalists/financial elite because the elite have the money/power, but they don’t have the sheer numbers that the unions do; and, ultimately, they need the numbers. That’s why they are trying to reframe this into a “unions vs. taxpayer” thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
There is another issue behind the attempts to dismantle unions, and that’s the desire of the powerful to privatize everything and sell public assets to a handful of very wealthy folks who want to strip all revenue generating assets from the government (and all the people who benefit from govt services) and funnel it to a very small number of people. If the unions are decimated, be prepared to pay a whole lot more for all “public” services. I think a lot of people tend to underestimate all the benefits we derive from a well-financed, benevolent, fairly non-corrupt government.
Again, if this low/no tax Libertarian Utopia exists, can somebody show us an example of it? I’ve never seen any evidence that shows low/no taxes and a weak government provide for a successful economy and thriving middle class. If there’s an example of out there, please let us know. In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.
See for yourself:
March 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM #678060Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter]
Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.
[/quote]
Why?
And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.
I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.[/quote]
Why? Because the cuts won’t be as drastic if we force the financial industry to take the first loss. We can’t know what we’re really dealing with until after they’ve taken the first loss.
None of the union members I know of want Joe Sixpack to pay for the losses. Go to the rallies, and you won’t see a single sign saying, “raise property taxes,” or, “raise sales taxes.” What you will see are lots and lots of signs expressing anger and frustration with the bailouts, and how unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
You keep trying to make this about J6, but it has nothing to do with him/her. This is a battle between labor and capital; J6 is just being drawn into it by the capitalists/financial elite because the elite have the money/power, but they don’t have the sheer numbers that the unions do; and, ultimately, they need the numbers. That’s why they are trying to reframe this into a “unions vs. taxpayer” thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
There is another issue behind the attempts to dismantle unions, and that’s the desire of the powerful to privatize everything and sell public assets to a handful of very wealthy folks who want to strip all revenue generating assets from the government (and all the people who benefit from govt services) and funnel it to a very small number of people. If the unions are decimated, be prepared to pay a whole lot more for all “public” services. I think a lot of people tend to underestimate all the benefits we derive from a well-financed, benevolent, fairly non-corrupt government.
Again, if this low/no tax Libertarian Utopia exists, can somebody show us an example of it? I’ve never seen any evidence that shows low/no taxes and a weak government provide for a successful economy and thriving middle class. If there’s an example of out there, please let us know. In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.
See for yourself:
March 15, 2011 at 5:21 PM #678403Participant[quote=jstoesz][quote=CA renter]
Again, I don’t have a problem with public servants taking cuts, but the first losses have to be borne by those who caused the liabilities in the first place.
[/quote]
Why?
And that is where we differ CAR…Your argument that fire and police are not overpaid is fine, and for the purposes of my point, I am happy to leave that issue alone.
I was merely pointing out, that one does not have to happen before the other. They must both happen in whatever order we can muster. It makes no sense to hold public sector union compensation over the heads of the tax payer so that they will claw back ill gotten banking industry gains. To the taxpayer all that matters is getting his listing ship of state right. The order of makes no difference.[/quote]
Why? Because the cuts won’t be as drastic if we force the financial industry to take the first loss. We can’t know what we’re really dealing with until after they’ve taken the first loss.
None of the union members I know of want Joe Sixpack to pay for the losses. Go to the rallies, and you won’t see a single sign saying, “raise property taxes,” or, “raise sales taxes.” What you will see are lots and lots of signs expressing anger and frustration with the bailouts, and how unions want Wall Street to pay for the damage they created. They all want *Wall Street (and associated parties)* to pay for it, not you.
You keep trying to make this about J6, but it has nothing to do with him/her. This is a battle between labor and capital; J6 is just being drawn into it by the capitalists/financial elite because the elite have the money/power, but they don’t have the sheer numbers that the unions do; and, ultimately, they need the numbers. That’s why they are trying to reframe this into a “unions vs. taxpayer” thing, when nothing could be further from the truth.
There is another issue behind the attempts to dismantle unions, and that’s the desire of the powerful to privatize everything and sell public assets to a handful of very wealthy folks who want to strip all revenue generating assets from the government (and all the people who benefit from govt services) and funnel it to a very small number of people. If the unions are decimated, be prepared to pay a whole lot more for all “public” services. I think a lot of people tend to underestimate all the benefits we derive from a well-financed, benevolent, fairly non-corrupt government.
Again, if this low/no tax Libertarian Utopia exists, can somebody show us an example of it? I’ve never seen any evidence that shows low/no taxes and a weak government provide for a successful economy and thriving middle class. If there’s an example of out there, please let us know. In the meantime, back in Realityville, the most successful, democratic, countries with high standards of living tend to have very socialistic (NOT communist — there is a difference) tendencies.
See for yourself:
March 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM #677266Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. In many cases, you can have politicians who are very adversarial WRT unions. Like I’ve said many times before, unions have been making concessions for YEARS now. What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about concessions; it’s about collective bargaining and eliminating unions.
These local government representatives are in their positions because VOTERS put them there, not unions. Are unions a special interest group? Sure, just like all the private enterprises who seek taxpayer money, too. At least, with public unions, we are getting something for our money. They provide the physical, social, and legal infrastructure which all people and employers rely on in order to make our economy work. Without them, there would be no middle class, no democratic laws, no emergency services (good luck calling 911!), no free/low-cost public libraries, far fewer literate people, etc.
With private entities in control of our public resources, the money that gets funnelled to the very top (which will be most of the wealth) can go anywhere it wants — overseas, or in commodities which push prices up for poor people around the world, etc. — whereas a public employee’s salary tends to recirculate back through the local economy…the economy that benefits all those taxpayers who pay for their services.
Like it or not we need a balance of power. Right now, the financial elite/corporatists have FAR too much power. The only entities with the size and power to counter them are the unions. For as long as that’s the case, we need to support unions, or else risk total privatization of all public assets and services; and I guarantee you that won’t end up being either cheaper or better. Joe Sixpack will NOT benefit from that arrangement.
March 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM #677324Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. In many cases, you can have politicians who are very adversarial WRT unions. Like I’ve said many times before, unions have been making concessions for YEARS now. What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about concessions; it’s about collective bargaining and eliminating unions.
These local government representatives are in their positions because VOTERS put them there, not unions. Are unions a special interest group? Sure, just like all the private enterprises who seek taxpayer money, too. At least, with public unions, we are getting something for our money. They provide the physical, social, and legal infrastructure which all people and employers rely on in order to make our economy work. Without them, there would be no middle class, no democratic laws, no emergency services (good luck calling 911!), no free/low-cost public libraries, far fewer literate people, etc.
With private entities in control of our public resources, the money that gets funnelled to the very top (which will be most of the wealth) can go anywhere it wants — overseas, or in commodities which push prices up for poor people around the world, etc. — whereas a public employee’s salary tends to recirculate back through the local economy…the economy that benefits all those taxpayers who pay for their services.
Like it or not we need a balance of power. Right now, the financial elite/corporatists have FAR too much power. The only entities with the size and power to counter them are the unions. For as long as that’s the case, we need to support unions, or else risk total privatization of all public assets and services; and I guarantee you that won’t end up being either cheaper or better. Joe Sixpack will NOT benefit from that arrangement.
March 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM #677931Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. In many cases, you can have politicians who are very adversarial WRT unions. Like I’ve said many times before, unions have been making concessions for YEARS now. What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about concessions; it’s about collective bargaining and eliminating unions.
These local government representatives are in their positions because VOTERS put them there, not unions. Are unions a special interest group? Sure, just like all the private enterprises who seek taxpayer money, too. At least, with public unions, we are getting something for our money. They provide the physical, social, and legal infrastructure which all people and employers rely on in order to make our economy work. Without them, there would be no middle class, no democratic laws, no emergency services (good luck calling 911!), no free/low-cost public libraries, far fewer literate people, etc.
With private entities in control of our public resources, the money that gets funnelled to the very top (which will be most of the wealth) can go anywhere it wants — overseas, or in commodities which push prices up for poor people around the world, etc. — whereas a public employee’s salary tends to recirculate back through the local economy…the economy that benefits all those taxpayers who pay for their services.
Like it or not we need a balance of power. Right now, the financial elite/corporatists have FAR too much power. The only entities with the size and power to counter them are the unions. For as long as that’s the case, we need to support unions, or else risk total privatization of all public assets and services; and I guarantee you that won’t end up being either cheaper or better. Joe Sixpack will NOT benefit from that arrangement.
March 15, 2011 at 5:37 PM #678069Participant[quote=davelj][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Unlike private unions, public unions aren’t “bargaining” or “negotiating” with anyone. The politicians who vote for these sweet deals are sitting on the SAME SIDE of the table as the unions. This is vote buying, pure and simple. Wisconsin is not some bellwether state, blazing a new trail and seeking to bust unions. Only half the states have a collective-bargaining agreement in place, and there is plenty of data to support the fact that the states that don’t, like Virginia or Indiana, are in fact able to deliver effective services and at a lower cost.
[/quote]And therein lies the problem. The adversarial relationship that exists between private unions and their employers does not exist between municipal unions and those they are negotiating with. They are sleeping in the same bed. And in most cases the negotiators for the taxpayers are in line for even larger pensions than the union members. That is why we end up with these ridiculous contracts with benefits and retirement packages virtually unheard of in private industry. It’s also why so many states don’t allow collective bargaining for their municipal unions. It’s a recipe for fiscal disaster.[/quote]
Not necessarily true. In many cases, you can have politicians who are very adversarial WRT unions. Like I’ve said many times before, unions have been making concessions for YEARS now. What’s happening in Wisconsin isn’t about concessions; it’s about collective bargaining and eliminating unions.
These local government representatives are in their positions because VOTERS put them there, not unions. Are unions a special interest group? Sure, just like all the private enterprises who seek taxpayer money, too. At least, with public unions, we are getting something for our money. They provide the physical, social, and legal infrastructure which all people and employers rely on in order to make our economy work. Without them, there would be no middle class, no democratic laws, no emergency services (good luck calling 911!), no free/low-cost public libraries, far fewer literate people, etc.
With private entities in control of our public resources, the money that gets funnelled to the very top (which will be most of the wealth) can go anywhere it wants — overseas, or in commodities which push prices up for poor people around the world, etc. — whereas a public employee’s salary tends to recirculate back through the local economy…the economy that benefits all those taxpayers who pay for their services.
Like it or not we need a balance of power. Right now, the financial elite/corporatists have FAR too much power. The only entities with the size and power to counter them are the unions. For as long as that’s the case, we need to support unions, or else risk total privatization of all public assets and services; and I guarantee you that won’t end up being either cheaper or better. Joe Sixpack will NOT benefit from that arrangement.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.