Walker v. Public Employees

[guido911]

Nice try. That's a projected future figure that isn't germane to the budget bill under discussion. As in, the fix being considered only applies to the present budget that hasn't been passed yet and isn't even under consideration.

Also, you should understand what exactly the shock doctrine is before invoking the term. Hint: The stimulus fails the test, not being a change in policy, much less a radical one.

By all means genius, explain how the "shock doctrine" was not in play when Obama was telling us that if we didn't pass stimulus the world would essentially come to an end. And don't give me this "disaster capitalism" crap, unless you are of the opinion that stimulus and health care was "disaster socialism". As for my "future figure", it seems that is sure as smile germane to Walker's decision to have these public employees chip in less than their private sector employees equivalents for their health care and pensions.

[nathanm]

I already explained it. I'm not going to repeat myself just because you choose not to understand things that conflict with your ideology.

And no, your future figure is irrelevant, as the budget bill under consideration isn't making changes to future periods, only this one. And eliminating collective bargaining rights, which is such a drastic interference with the free market, I can't comprehend how you support it. Funny how you're all for the free market when it comes to the buy side, but when it comes to the sell side you want the government to intervene and force the sellers of labor to negotiate under terms other than those they have chosen.

[we vs us]

Robert Reich:  I got yer class warfare right here, pally.

"The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don't believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class. . . .

. . .They pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power."

[Red Arrow]

Robert Reich:  I got yer class warfare right here, pally.

From the link above:

Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

No bias in his opinions. 

[Townsend]

No bias in his opinions.

Have you ever heard someone give an opinion with zero bias?

[we vs us]

From the link above:

Robert Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley.

No bias in his opinions.  

The point really isn't to give an unbiased opinion but he's an educated academic who's served in a recent presidential administration, so he's speaking from a place of experience and knowledge.  You can agree or disagree with his thesis, but the thought is interesting and not without merit.

[Red Arrow]

The point really isn't to give an unbiased opinion but he's an educated academic who's served in a recent presidential administration, so he's speaking from a place of experience and knowledge.  You can agree or disagree with his thesis, but the thought is interesting and not without merit.

I didn't remember his name so I followed the link and was not surprised.  I would not have expected you to post something from a former member of anything Republican.  I'll leave the merit option open to opinion.

[Red Arrow]

Have you ever heard someone give an opinion with zero bias?

Some have more than others.

Edit:
Perhaps I should have said presentation rather than opinion.

[we vs us]

I didn't remember his name so I followed the link and was not surprised.  I would not have expected you to post something from a former member of anything Republican.  I'll leave the merit option open to opinion.

What did you think of what he said?

[Red Arrow]

What did you think of what he said?

I'll re-read it again at home (I scanned it briefly) and mostly what I saw were left side talking points.

[Ed W]

Given that Wisconsin had a modest surplus when Walker became governor, and he handed out tax breaks that amounted almost exactly to the projected budget deficit, this is no more than a naked exercise in power.  He wants to destroy public employee unions, but not all of them.  He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol.  Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.

Regardless, a labor agreement is a contract, and it's not right that a governor can unilaterally abrogate it.  I'm surprised that some here would condone such behavior, particularly since we have so many who claim to support lawful behavior.  What the governor is doing is no different from a bank demanding that you pay a higher interest rate on your mortgage or face foreclosure.  The terms of any labor contract are mutually agreed upon, and it's simply wrong for one party to disregard them.

[we vs us]

I'll re-read it again at home (I scanned it briefly) and mostly what I saw were left side talking points.

Interesting.  So it doesn't square with anything you know about how our politics have been playing out lately?

[guido911]

Given that Wisconsin had a modest surplus when Walker became governor, and he handed out tax breaks that amounted almost exactly to the projected budget deficit, this is no more than a naked exercise in power.  He wants to destroy public employee unions, but not all of them.  He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol.  Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.

Regardless, a labor agreement is a contract, and it's not right that a governor can unilaterally abrogate it.  I'm surprised that some here would condone such behavior, particularly since we have so many who claim to support lawful behavior.  What the governor is doing is no different from a bank demanding that you pay a higher interest rate on your mortgage or face foreclosure.  The terms of any labor contract are mutually agreed upon, and it's simply wrong for one party to disregard them.

So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?

I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.

[Gaspar]

So are the teachers that called in sick or the fact that their conduct has resulted in school closings in breach of contract? How do the taxpayers recover damages for that conduct?

I m not sure what you are getting at overall. Walker wants the public sector unions to pony up more money for their benefits. You I gather are against that and instead want the taxpayers to eat it. As for labor contracts in general, renegotiation takes place all the time. Only now, if nothing is done, I understand Walker will have to fire 6000 of these people.

Correction.  He wants them to contribute to 12% of their medical insurance (they currently only pay for 6% of their total medical insureance), and 5.8% of their retirement (they currently pay nothing into retirement).  Wish I could get that deal!

He still wants them to be able to collectively bargain on wages, he just wants to end the constant benefit vacuum.

[guido911]

He exempted the police, fire fighters, and highway patrol.  Guess which three endorsed him during the campaign.

Whoopsie!

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG6USUaG