 |
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I didn't say they were so good. I said they're the same. I don't disagree that the benefits are not sustainable... The place to fix them, though, is at the bargaining table - and NOT jammed down their throats...
You didn't like that jamming down your throat stuff when it was healthcare, but jamming stuff that destroy unions is cool.. I understand.
excon
Since we're talking about how taxpayer money is spent, let's just take away all the research grants that have profs sitting on their butts and getting credit while grad students work away. We have Big Pharma to do research! We shouldn't pay to have it in state schools!
And FOOTBALL! And BASKETBALL! And HOCKEY! My LORD! Do you know how much money is funneled into state schools for SPORTS? Sports are not educational! Let's just fire a few coaches, and we'll get the entire state deficit back!
OOOOH! Even BETTER! Let's lower the drinking age in WI to 18! The beer companies have said they'd make up the deficit caused by the loss of federal money for highways, and that would create a whole BUNCH more business! Not only for bars and taverns, but for lawyers and bail bondsmen. Not to mention insurance agents and car dealerships and car repair shops! I'm better that people would be okay with a higher liquor tax if you lowered the drinking age! That's even MORE money coming in!
I wonder if that would make up the difference that just wanting to keep collective bargaining (which has no monetary stamp whatsoever attached to it) with state workers.
You keep talking about taxes and deficits---but the state workers ALREADY took a pay and benefits cut. The only thing they're fighting for right now is the right to collectively bargain. That doesn't have a price tag on it, last I saw. So... where's all this extra money from taking it away going to come from?
This is ALL about busting the unions, not about money. If it were about money, it would have ended when the state workers conceded pay and benefits.
I'm with Steve in his position of the public service unions collective bargaining so called right.
In that we are both in agreement with FDR who said :
all government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public-personnel management. The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people.
I'm a free association type of guy. I think workers should have the choice to join a union... or not .That is why I favor right to work laws . Governor Walker says the state should not be doing the dues collection services for the union masters ,through automatic payroll deduction,. who in turn contribute to politicians . Let the union collect dues from the rank and file without the automatic payroll deduction and see how much the rank and file is willing to contribute .
Governor Walker would NOT remove collective bargaining for wages... only for benefits.
Since we're talking about how taxpayer money is spent, let's just take away all the research grants that have profs sitting on their butts and getting credit while grad students work away.
No problem there .I see how well that's worked out with the 'climate scientists '.
And FOOTBALL! And BASKETBALL! And HOCKEY! My LORD! Do you know how much money is funneled into state schools for SPORTS?! Sports are not educational! Let's just fire a few coaches, and we'll get the entire state deficit back!
Actually for the major programs sports is a revenue source for the colleges. That means they can charge less tuition .
OOOOH!! Even BETTER! Let's lower the drinking age in WI to 18! The beer companies have said they'd make up the deficit caused by the loss of federal money for highways, and that would create a whole BUNCH more business! Not only for bars and taverns, but for lawyers and bail bondsmen.
Not to mention insurance agents and car dealerships and car repair shops! I'm better that people would be okay with a higher liquor tax if you lowered the drinking age! That's even MORE money coming in!
I have no probem with that . 18 is considered adult .
I wonder if that would make up the difference that just wanting to keep collective bargaining (which has no monetary stamp whatsoever attached to it) with state workers.
I disagree .The collective bargaining process has bankrupt the states.
I'm all for cutting those first few things out as well. And will add, rebates for "Green" crap... etc... if its not good enough on its own... then its not worth subsidizing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Same with subsidizing education for the lazy and illegals... want to get get a loan. I had to do it... I was worse off than Obama the same year he went... he gets a free ride for being the right skin color... I was told to p*ss off. Even though neither parent had a full time jon for several previous years (the Jimmy Carter recession). No subsidized housing... pay the rent or move someplace you can. No welfare. Get a job or live under a bridge.
Save the food stamps and unemployment for people who actually earned the right to collect them in hard times.
The state workers aren't taking the cut most of the rest of us have... and haven't had to deal with the nearly monthly layoffs and staff reductions. My office has had 60% staff cuts in the last 14 months alone. But the workload remains the same. I'm happy to still be drawing a paycheck. I have the experience to run an entire office... and enough seniourity to still be around... but not enough to consider myself either safe or secure I'll still have my job even 6 months from now.
They aren't paying $300+ a month for employer provided health insurance... they aren't essentually funding 100% of their retirement like most of us are... even those of us in Unions.
Unions should be prevented from spending a dime union dues on Political activities... because large portions of their memberships DON'T vote for the people the money they are forced to pay is going to support. For example... there are very few members of my local that are democrats.. yet we get no choice where our union dues we HAVE to pay are wasted.
Lets let the State employees pay for their own retirements like the rest of us have to. Heck... if 401K's are good enough for the rest of us... its good enough for them too. Same with their medical Coverage... let them pay what the average American pays out of pocket. I don't get free health care... and I'm in one of the most well known Unions there is.
Hello again,
You know, of course, we really don't have to be doing this right now... There IS a bunch of jobs coming our way any day now, if we just hang on.. I mean, we DID just give the "job creators", the richest 2% amongst us, a huge tax cut, didn't we? And, we were told that if we did that, they'd create jobs, weren't we? They wouldn't lie, would they? Ok, they got theirs, where's the jobs?
What did you say?? There's only one more little teeny thing you need from us before you unleash the jobs. You want us to just sit by and watch you crush the unions... Then we'll surly be awash with jobs... No? You're not lying this time, are you?
excon
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'm not sure who the FDA are but I would disagree that the employer is the whole person. Not unless they can show how this works. The FDA is assuming we can move from the singular to the general without having to establish the steps in between.
I think Steve is wrong. The taxpayer is not the employer and the taxpayer shouldn't decide what public officials should be paid. In fact this is an impossible task.
How do we establish that (A) -the employer leads to the whole people. In other words, (A) leads to (B), (B) leads to (C) and finally linked to (Z) -the whole people.
The assumption appears we can move from (A) -the employer automatically leads to (Z)- the whole people. I think this is a very slippery slope argument.
Regards
Tut
This is about saving those union jobs not crushing the unions. The states can't afford them at the current compensation level . So they learn to live with the new reality of having wages and compensation more in line with the private sector ,or they get cut loose and learn to survive in the private sector . Their choice.
Tut with all due respect ,your logic is fuzzy . Let me simplify without using an alphabet soup. The public employees do not get a dollar of wage or benefit that doesn't come from the tax revenue of the state. The revenue of the state belongs to the people of the state .That makes the tax payers and the people of the state the single employer of the public worker.Quote:
How do we establish that (A) -the employer leads to the whole people. In other words, (A) leads to (B), (B) leads to (C) and finally linked to (Z) -the whole people.
The assumption appears we can move from (A) -the employer automatically leads to (Z)- the whole people. I think this is a very slippery slope argument.
By the way... FDR (not FDA) is Franklin Roosevelt... the most socialist President the US had before the anointed one ,Obama .Even he understood that the worker employer relationship between private employer and worker was different than the public employee's relationship with the government that hires them.
Me ;I would privatize many of their functions and let private employers contract and license for the work that the public employee provides (except absolutely essential services like police protection ) .
Now I remember way back when, well it might have been twenty or thirty years ago, when my own nation had to learn the hard lesson that there is no such thing as a free lunch or guaranteed employment or the perks of office, etc. There was a difficult time for a while, it led to the recession we had to have and the banana republic and the decline of unionism but out of it came a stronger nation which weathered the exporting of industries and today 5% unemployment and an economy that can weather the shocks the twenty first century has thrown at it. So I suggest you learn the lesson and learn to love the razorQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Agreed . The left here is still using models developed at the turn of the 20th century.
And when the police, the fire department, the state patrol, the prison keepers, the teachers, the universities, the emergency road crews, the plow drivers, the bus drivers, the cafeterias, etc, all go to hell and go private sector because that's where the good people are, do you REALLY think it will cost the taxpayer less in the long run?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Because if you force it all to go private sector, then you're forcing demand to go up, causing the supply to charge more. Yeah, there will be some chaff that you get rid of, but there will also be some gems that you'll never be able to hire at private sector wages.
Here's something I don't know if you know: In order to teach at a regionally accredited university, you have to have a degree one HIGHER than the degree you are teaching. So if you teach bachelor's level courses, you need to have a master's degree. There ARE exceptions to this, but not as many anymore as you would think.
We've been trying to hire (at our proprietary school, so private sector) two department chairs for some time now--one for a year, and one for 6 months. The qualified applicant must have a master's in business (for one program) and a master's in IT (for the other program) and must have experience in an educational environment. In the "private sector", those are 6-figure incomes pretty much right after you get your degree.
Because we're a proprietary school, and cannot provide the benefits OR salary of a state school---we can't fill the position. I don't know what they pay, but it's a good deal less than $100k. And our benefits are CRAP.
So that means that our students suffer because we simply can't compete with the "private sector", and we ARE the private sector! But with Washington closely watching proprietary schools, we certainly can't raise tuition (like a private school could) and we can't get subsidized to make sure our students are getting what they need (like a public university).
If you put public schools into that sort of economic environment, and you're going to have a shortage of state workers in general, and of teachers in particular. Teachers are paid for crap most of the time anyway--so why in the HELL would anyone become one if they didn't get some of the benefits the state currently provides? I know SEVERAL people that will quit their jobs if they lose collective bargaining, because they can make more money doing something else with their degree.
Teachers are not "essential services"?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No wonder you and I clash on so much of this!
Teachers are THE most essential service the country has. If you start taking away a quality public education, you will drive this country to hell even faster than it is already going.
No .Have you seen "Waiting for Superman " yet ? It is intollerable the lack of education that the public school system has delivered in this country overall given the amt. of resources that goes into the public school systems nationwide. I think it would be much more efficient if the standards were set by the state and the education system was subject to competition in the market place. Too often to ensure that children get a quality education parents have to shell out major dollars to private tutors or businesses like Sylvan ,Kaplan etc. for their children to be brought to basic levels of competence in the very basic subjects... It is undeniable that American students are falling way behind in basic levels of education needed to compete in the 21st century workforce.
This is a whole different discussion that incorporates the need of the state to run institutions of higher education ;whether there has been an over emphasis in the need for the standard college degree and many other priority issues. I've been keeping the discussion here to the primary and secondary education systems since they are mandated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I disagree with the premise of the 1st paragraph. It's become a parody ;the road crew with 4 people watching the 5th filling a pot hole ;but too often that represents reality . Since we are talking education ,I'll stick to that . Everything beyond the teaching force and a few adminstrators could easily be contracted out . Private colleges hire food services ;why can't public ? Private businesses contract out maintenance services ,why can't public ? I'd bet anything the level of performace would improve .
Hello again, tom:
During the health care debate, you were the VOICE of the people, and you didn't let us forget... But, this time, the peoples VOICE is on the other side, and OVERWHELMINGLY so...
So, what the people want only matter SOMETIMES??
excon
All I know is results . Mitch Daniels did away with the public sector unions collective bargaining by executive order on his 1st day in office. By 2005 Indiana's budget was balanced.
It doesn't matter what my opinion is... there is no choice here.
When the entitlement spending at the Federal level is debated ,the same options will be presented for consideration.
Part of that is the No Child Left Behind program--which was the most idiotic thing a government ever came up with--which teaches to the stupidest kids in the class rather than the smartest.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Part of it is uninvolved parents.
Part of it is that the national scores are brought down by states like AZ and TN and TX, who do NOT place an emphasis on education like WI, MN, and MD (who have been in the top 10 for the last 10 years for sure, maybe longer).
And part of it is that a lot of teachers don't last more than a year or two without burning out because of the bureaucracy of the education system. They're expected to teach, parent, babysit, police and monitor students for any health or emotional problems, and be there for their students LONG after their shift has ended. In addition, to save money many of them MUST be involved in extra-curricular activities that are part of their salary--they don't get paid extra to be the Spanish Club leader or the play director. We actually need to do MORE for our teachers, or at least lower the expectations of them, rather than LESS. PARENTS need to parent and babysit. POLICE need to police. Doctors and counselors need to monitor. And people should be hired to handle extra-curriculars, rather than expecting teachers to do something that isn't teaching for no extra money.
If WI is #8 in the country for education, they must be doing SOMETHING right. And frankly, I got a great education in WI. I was appalled when I lived in states like WA and TX and saw the state of their education systems. When the valedictorian of a class was scoring less than 1000 on the SAT, there's something wrong with the education system in general in that state. I was in the top 10% of my class, and graduated with a 3.89. I scored a 32 on the ACT (I didn't take the SAT) and was extremely disappointed in my score (but there were extenuating life circumstances going on at the time for me).
There are plenty of fixes for the education system that I can think of--one is that making welfare dependent on a high school diploma would help, as would letting students drop out at 16 without parental consent so that we're only teaching the kids that WANT to learn. Of course, those students can't get Welfare, so...
And seriously---you want to limit state spending? GET RID OF WELFARE. Start making birth control a mandatory part of receiving it. HALVE the benefits--there's no reason someone on welfare should make more in benefits than I do, salary and benefits combined. Take the kids away from ANYONE who is confirmed a drug addict or neglectful and give them to the thousands of people waiting to adopt.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Here's a warning... After having given the richest of the rich amongst us a HUGE tax cut, the idea of shared sacrifice is out the window. It got noticed.
Having noticed, too, that NOBODY went to jail after we were RIPPED OFF to the tune of ZILLIONS of $$$'s, the victims of that crime are NOT predisposed to being victimized again. And that's exactly what the right wing is trying to do.
As long as you try to balance the federal budget on the backs of the poor and the working stiff, while the rich sip wine in the South of France, what you see in Wisconsin is just a preview of what's going to happen...
excon
But the problem you're missing then is that primary and secondary teachers do not get tenure. NOR do they get the salaries and benefits of university teachers. Not even CLOSE. Please remember that most of the primary and secondary teachers have a starting salary of about $25k, and it doesn't go up much for the first several years they teach. Most of them hold second jobs to make ends meet and pay off their student loans. Second--where does the money come from, then? Is each school district then subject to ONLY what the local taxpayers pay for the school, and funded completely that way? Or do you go by a quota system? A testing system? How do you determine which school districts get how much money?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I can tell you right now that local funding doesn't work. That's the most quick way to make inequalities evident in schools. If rich areas can afford to buy new computers, new classroom equipment, and pay more for teachers, then poor areas (like.. say... North Minneapolis) get squat, and they have to LIKE it. They get crappy teachers that are desperate for ANY job, they get no new equipment, they get buildings that are not up to date. They get over-crowded classrooms and gang wars on campus.
Quota systems? Nope, they don't work either. Having a quota of certain grades, or certain ethnicities, etc, has never done anything but make for a segregated school.
Testing system? Ask TX how well THAT works. Their teachers get paid by how many of their students pass a state standardized test. So guess what? They teach that test, and ONLY that test. Kids don't learn how to learn--they learn how to spit out the facts that will probably be on the test.
You have to look at the larger picture for the answer to that. Part of the answer to that is easy: student workers. Student workers can ONLY work for the school. They cannot work for an outside entity. Our security and maintenance and cafeteria are subcontracted out. Student workers cannot work for them. But when I worked for a state school, those were some of the best student worker jobs, because the hours were consistent. You can pay student workers minimum wage to perform these jobs, and actually DO keep costs down as compared to giving it to the private sector. Again, I work at a proprietary school, so we don't have a lot of choice on what is contracted and what stays in-house. But state schools pay student workers to man security desks, work in the cafeteria, clean hallways and common areas, work front desk positions, perform basic "maintenance" such as shoveling and cleaning grounds, and run computer labs. All at minimum wage (or so... some of those jobs pay a whopping $9 an hour), and all with no benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Maybe the level of performance WOULD improve with not using student workers. But the cost would SKYROCKET.
Fact-The budget deficit he has to fix was one he created by cutting corporate taxes to the rich, thus destroying valuable revenue.
Fact-teachers, and other state workers have to make up that deficit I revenues that was created.
Fact-Its not just unions that will be affected by these cuts but all the taxpayers of Wisconsin.
Fact-State workers pay taxes and use the services that other state workers provide. For example teachers getting to school on highways and streets that other state workers have plowed.
Fact-This governor has already cost the state money when he was the budget director of Milwaukee county. The are still paying for his illegal union busting attempts.
Fact-While he seeks to take the rights of Union workers away, he has given himself the power to decide what gets sold, and services contracted by the state, without the benefit of the state bidding process. HMMM! Who will BENEFIT? (See Koch Bros).
Fact- Not the taxpayers.
A friend of mine sent this joke figured I'd share it with you since we are on this subject. Im not a big fan of unions but I understand.
A unionized public employee, an ill-informed citizen, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the ill-informed citizen and says, "Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."
Hello again, spit:Quote:
Originally Posted by spitvenom
Dude! That's hilarious. What makes it so, is that it's SOOOOO close to reality. In fact, it IS reality. It's what FOX news does every day. They take an absolutely ridiculous argument (like that guy wants YOUR cookie), and offer experts all day long, to explain that it's true - that bastard WANTS your cookie. I posted on this very subject over on the FOX and Canada thread. Your joke FITS my post like a glove.
excon
Hey Ex
You can repost it if you like.
As an aside, I just realized that Spitvenom's name doesn't have an E after the T.
I've literally spent a couple years thinking your name was SpitEvenom, not Spitvenom.
I'm so blonde.
HAHAHAA No spite. spitvenom is a hip hop term for someone who is amazing in freestyle battles. This person can think of rhymes off the top of their head that makes sense.
FACT-The public, nor the state pays for any part of the unions health insurance, OR pension plans!! This money comes from a fund that the worker pays into, Through COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, from their own paychecks that they agreed to instead of taking wage increases over the years. That's the way it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So how does cutting pay, AND putting more of their check into their own pension fund save the state? IT DOESN'T! It only makes payroll obligations smaller, but not enough to balance the tax cuts he has already given. That's what his cuts to cities and towns is about. The goal is still getting the wage earners in the state to balance his new budget, by their local budgets.
I titled the OP 'the choice ' .The choice is either get their salary and compensation in line with the public sector or face layoffs. The State budget can no longer afford gold plated compensation for public employees.
The Legislature allows the collective bargaining and the legislature can change it. NO ONE is talking about renaging on the existing contract. But when that contract comes up it's likely they will be playing under more rational rules .
And this couldn't be done by just rescinding the big business tax cuts?
Why should the average person pay more and lose more when the very rich are getting more and keeping more?
You cannot make up the budget shortfalls in either State ,local ,or Federal budgets by 'taxing the rich' to death. But it's the only one size fits all argument the populists have had in this country since the days of Jackson.
You can't make up budget problems by GIVING TAX CUTS to businesses/the rich, EITHER.
I wouldn't give up MY collective bargaining after tax CUTS to big businesses, either.
If *I* must sacrifice, the RICH must sacrifice, too.
And if there's enough money to give the rich tax cuts, then there's enough to give them to the rest of us too.
I'm REALLY sick of the top 1% of this country's rich controlling 42% of the nation's wealth. Yes, people should get to EARN money and keep it---but they should be subject to the SAME taxes as the rest of us.
And States can't force businesses to remain in high tax rate states. Here in NY we've seen all types of business flight as the state tried to tax to death businesses to pay for their bloated budgets .Quote:
You can't make up budget problems by GIVING TAX CUTS to businesses/the rich, EITHER.
Yeah that worked temporarily when things were prosperous . But now,all the states that remained tied to that flawed model are getting a dose of reality . Even NY's liberal Governor Andrew Cuomo has ridden the road to Damascus on that !
We are in complete agreement . The wealthy 1 % do pay about half the taxes. We all should pay the same... 1 flat rate ,no deductions.Quote:
Yes, people should get to EARN money and keep it---but they should be subject to the SAME taxes as the rest of us.
Tax the businesses and they have to raise the prices of their products to recover that money... and who still pays for it? Right, you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
You don't see a lot of job providers OR job creation in the projects... but go to the weathier suburbs and you do... its THEY who create many of the jobs along with a lot of middle class people.
Make it too expensive to hire or produce here and the jobs go overseas... or away entirely.
Let the 38% who pay no taxes pay their fair share... and see how popular handouts are going to be when they have to pay for them, themselves.
Class warfare is a typical socialist and Democrat ploy... a certain group is blamed for the poor choices and decisions another group makes... and the group that makes the right choices is expected to be penalized for doing the right thing while the group that doesn't is rewarded for doing all the wrong things.
Seems perfectly logical why so much work has gone overseas when you look at it that way.
THere is what's nice to wish for... then there is reality. A business exists to make money... not provide welfare. It cost money and hard work to make a business that can make money, then people want to take away any profits then did make but did nothing to help them along the way, where the rule is... make a profit or close up. You can't run a business that's always losing money for long. Make it impossible to make money one place, and they will move it to a place more friendly to them. And many times that's overseas.
And I did once work in manufacturing... I left it because I didn't make enough to have been worth attending college and pay for a decade of debt. And the work I did... could NOT be done by any high school grad without advanced degree. And most of those places moved production overseas later. THe problems I saw wasn't the higher ups specifically... but the bloated middle and upper management ranks. Too many paper pushers... for too few workers. Few of them fit the rich guy mould.
I'd tell you what one of those things were... but everyone would know what it was and it could pin me down to a handful of people so I won't.
FACT-Taxing the rich to death is impossible.
FACT-Tax cuts and loop holes give them the cash to go overseas and hire slave labor!
FACT- You think the slaves over there can afford to buy what they make? No they send it back here for you to buy.
FACT- We are going back to slavery, and your skin color won"t matter one bit. The size of your "GREEN" WILL.
YOU READY TO NEGOTIATE YET?
Lol the biggest phonies are the sanctimonious rich like Warren Buffett who shelters his income and complains his secretary pays more taxes than he.
Smoothy is 100 % correct in pointing out that taxes are overhead that get passed on to the consumer in higher prices. FACT
Here is the lib rhyme... don't tax you ,don't tax me ,tax that man behind the tree.
"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."
— Alexis de Tocqueville
Really... on what planet? People buy what they can afford... what you call slave labor is anything but. They can quit... and go back to dirt farming which apparently was worse than they do now.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Slave labor did and has existed (and some places does exist undoubtedly)... but products of slave labor aren't allowed to be imported here by federal law. If you know something customs doesn't, give them a call, I encourage it.
Try and tax a rich guys savings... and his money is coming out of acessible means and being hidden.
Really think that's all that hard to do? It isn't. I'm not rich (except for maybe sub-saharan or third world standards) and even I don't have all my money in places democrats can reach. Or even on these shores.
The point is this:
I would fight for not losing my collective bargaining rights when the state gave tax CUTS to big businesses.
Wisconsin SUCKS for businesses. It really does. But it's AWESOME at education.
How about this? Stop giving STATE grants to people to go to school? I didn't get one, and I was in the upper end of LOWER class when I went to college the first time. I dragged MYSELF out of that environment, so I know it can be done. You can't tell me that I got more opportunities than other people, because I WORKED for my opportunities.
Get rid of welfare and you've solved the state budget problem. End of story.
And actually--can't we place some of the blame for this mess back on the mortgage companies? If so many people weren't in foreclosure due to the housing bubble and bad loans, wouldn't the cities/states still have property tax coming in? Yet I don't see the banks having to make up that difference, or the mortgage companies. As a matter of fact, we BAILED THEM OUT!
And now we've got to give up things like collective bargaining (but not tax cuts for businesses!) so that we can cover the lost revenue that the banks and mortgage companies lost us?
That sounds like a scam, to me.
All due respect, but when Walmart, Nike, Chevy, and Caterpillar can manufacture goods overseas and send them back to you for our comsumption, that's slavery.Quote:
QUOTE by smoothy;
Really... on what planet? People buy what they can afford... what you call slave labor is anything but. They can quit... and go back to dirt farming which apparently was worse than they do now.
Slave labor did and has existed (and some places does exist undoubtedly)... but products of slave labor aren't allowed to be imported here by federal law. If you know something customs doesn't, give them a call, I encourage it.
When public servants are dictated to, that's slavery. And a lot of slavery, without the whips and chains, has always gone on in the USA, until the workers formed unions that changed dictating terms with no choices, into negotiating those choices. Ask any blue collar worker about the conditions BEFORE the unions were formed. Oh I forgot, those factories, and mills have left for the cheap slave labor in other less developed countries. My bad!!
Wonder where a dirt farmer hides his money, (what money? He has none to hide!).Quote:
Try and tax a rich guys savings... and his money is coming out of acessible means and being hidden.
Really think that's all that hard to do? It isn't. I'm not rich (except for maybe sub-saharan or third world standards) and even I don't have all my money in places democrats can reach. Or even on these shores.
FACT-Big business is not making jobs, or investing in America for ONE reason, he wants the work rules changed in his favor to go along with all those tax cuts, shelters, and Tax breaks he wants.
FACT- Unions didn't cause this recesion, or the deficits that followed. The guys with the money did, and guess what, workers are footing their bill.
FACT-There was no deficit in Wisconsin until the govenormade one, with his tax breaks.
Forget the feelings, deal with the facts!
Ready to negotiate yet??
Have you slaughtered any sacred cows lately? It seems someone is trying to drag a sacred cow to the altar and the faithful true believers of the union movement are objecting.
Inevietably you can keep your sacred cows only at the cost of food for the faithful
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 AM. |