User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 68

  1. #41
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    I'm sure they were. They just didn't expect that there would be massive revenue drops through the GOP screwing with tax policy.
    I see. That's not a logical statement considering the changing of the guard on a regular basis.

  2. #42
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I see. That's not a logical statement considering the changing of the guard on a regular basis.
    The origin of many of these contracts dates back before the supply-side insanity began to infect the Republican Party. In those days, they believed in balanced budgets, to be achieved through both spending cuts and revenue hikes. That's been the big change in the last 30 years.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The origin of many of these contracts dates back before the supply-side insanity began to infect the Republican Party. In those days, they believed in balanced budgets, to be achieved through both spending cuts and revenue hikes. That's been the big change in the last 30 years.
    It's hardly even "insanity" anymore. Instead, it becomes the consensus through repetition. The worse the effects from supply-side become, the harder people cling to it. It is a fascinating concept, but still disturbing to see it affect my brethren. Insanity is deviation, not ignorance. One can be both ignorant and sane.

  4. #44
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    The origin of many of these contracts dates back before the supply-side insanity began to infect the Republican Party. In those days, they believed in balanced budgets, to be achieved through both spending cuts and revenue hikes. That's been the big change in the last 30 years.
    For the sake of argument, let's pretend that's the case. So how would your GOP conspiracy theory stand up, if negotiations were handled prior to the GOP conspiracy theory?

  5. #45
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    For the sake of argument, let's pretend that's the case. So how would your GOP conspiracy theory stand up, if negotiations were handled prior to the GOP conspiracy theory?
    It's called "starve the beast", and has been the strategy ever since Grover Norquist and others of his ilk were in their primes. They don't like the big regulatory government, since they find the inability to pass off externality costs, along with the necessary tax rates, distasteful. The big idea is that it's relatively easy to pass tax cuts, particularly on the top end, if the middle class believes it is being taxed too heavily and that poor people are receiving all of the benefit. After taxes have been lowered to unsustainable levels, the subsequent budget crises would lead to "emergency" cuts of programs and services once thought absolutely untouchable. Union-busting is a huge part of this strategy, because the unions are some of the largest lobbies for a strong regulatory environment.

    The end goal is a minimalist state which is too impotent to interfere with the activities of big business, allowing them to engage in the more exploitative aspects of laissez-faire capitalism with relative impunity (since this raises profits.) The whole goal is to pass all the costs of running a business on to the masses, while retaining all the benefits for themselves.

  6. #46
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,028

    Default

    I see. But once again, it doesn't answer my question of how logic dictates that GOP conspiracy is responsible for the non-fluctuating rate of return and then backpedaled to how the pension funds were negotiated prior to the GOP conspiracy.

    So that's why labour sticks to its ideology when there's no more money in the pot? Pragmatically speaking, who will pay for its ideology and adherence to luxury benefits? Why should non-union labour support union labour when they're the ones who will eventually have to pay for union luxury ideology through taxes?

  7. #47
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenaphor View Post
    I see. But once again, it doesn't answer my question of how logic dictates that GOP conspiracy is responsible for the non-fluctuating rate of return and then backpedaled to how the pension funds were negotiated prior to the GOP conspiracy.

    So that's why labour sticks to its ideology when there's no more money in the pot? Pragmatically speaking, who will pay for its ideology and adherence to luxury benefits? Why should non-union labour support union labour when they're the ones who will eventually have to pay for union luxury ideology through taxes?
    First of all, this isn't conspiracy - this has been openly stated policy since the Reagan era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

    I hoped that you could see the logic for yourself - that when the orthodoxy was that no one is going to wildly change the revenue stream, and then that revenue stream does change wildly because of the power, interests and ideology of a particular political faction, there was no way that either of the contracting parties could possibly have seen the latter development coming along. Then, when renegotiations come along, the situation creates a high probability of impasse, as it is not in the union's interest to give up concessions already won, while it's not in the state's interest to spend money that it doesn't have.

    However, in Wisconsin, the unions did agree to give up many of the economic concessions through fair negotiations. The state did not agree to the contract, because that's not what Walker wants - he wants to smash the union.

    What's interesting is that you're accusing me of ideological thinking, while decrying the union for "luxury" benefits. What makes those benefits "luxurious?" Why should the union have to lose collective bargaining rights, when it has already agreed to give up many of these benefits? Why shouldn't the budget deficit be paid for by increasing taxes on the rich, who can afford it at this point, or even by declining to lower taxes at a time that the state can't afford it? Why shouldn't the non-union labor support the union efforts, when their tax burden hits much more lightly in real terms, because of the union's efforts in raising wages?

    Face it, you can't answer any of those questions without an ideological backing.

  8. #48
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,028

    Default

    Before I respond to all your points, what economic concessions was the union willing to give up?

  9. #49
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/loc...cc4c002e0.html

    Top leaders of two of Wisconsin's largest public employee unions announced they are willing to accept the financial concessions called for in Walker's plan, but will not accept the loss of collective bargaining rights.

    Mary Bell, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, and Marty Beil, executive director of AFSCME Council 24, said in a conference call with reporters that workers will do their fair share to narrow Wisconsin's budget gap.

    Walker's plan calls for nearly all state, local and school employees to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care premiums. That would save $30 million by June 30 and $300 million over the next two years, the governor has said.

    The measure also would prohibit most unionized public employees, except local police and fire fighters and the State Patrol, from bargaining on issues besides wages. Wage hikes could be negotiated only if they don't exceed the consumer price index.

    "We want to say loud and clear — it is not about those concessions," Bell said. "For my members, it's about retaining a voice in their professions."

    The two insisted their positions have not changed and Friday's call was intended to clarify their opposition to Walker's proposal. Bell, who represents 98,000 educators, and Beil, whose council includes 60,000 members, repeated calls for Walker to sit down with them.

    Senate Democrats also reached out to Walker, sending him a letter urging him to remove the bargaining provisions from his bill.

    But Walker repeated that he would not back down.

  10. #50
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    No, they didn't. After the entire legislature gets recalled, and Walker's thrown on his ass, they'll just reinstate the collective bargaining.
    We shall see; if they do that, I doubt the Wisconsin Republicans are going to flee to another state rather than just wait for a more politically opportune time.

Similar Threads

  1. Avoiding people in public places
    By chatoyer in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-22-2016, 03:01 PM
  2. Which sector do you work in?
    By ygolo in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 04:12 PM
  3. Title of this sector.
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-04-2007, 05:40 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO