Ever since corporations started getting active in the media in the 1970s, there has been a growing dislike of unions in the public eye -- a dislike that Governor Scott Walker (R, WI) thought to capitalize on when he moved to neuter his state's public unions. But who here is the real enemy of The People? Scott Walker would like you to believe that the unions are, but the truth is more complex than he wants to admit.
For decades, as the American economy grew in power between the end of World War II and the early 1970s, the power of the corporations that ran the economy was balanced by the power of the labor unions. These groups, while nominally not political in nature, collected money from the workers and often used it to fight for laws that made working conditions and wages better than the corporations would have liked. Then, in the early '70s, something changed. Corporations become more politically active, and began to advance their battle against labor unions in the media as well as at the negotiating table.
They succeeded admirably; labor unions in America have all but faded from the public eye until Governor Scott Walker made his move against them. Now, however, he has called the conservative rhetoric surrounding unions under public scrutiny, and the People are starting to see the many ways in which that rhetoric breaks down.
Very notably, pop pundit Jon Stewart of The Daily Show absolutely skewered Gov. Scott Walker's views on the 'greed' of teachers in a beautiful skit. He did leave a few points out that deserve to be made, however.
The talking heads on Fox News, as one example, claimed that the average teacher's salary is roughly $50,000 each year, plus another $38,000 in benefits brings their "total wages" up to about $80k. But this completely ignores the fact that the vast majority of teachers barely scratch the surface of the total benefits they're offered. That $38,000 is mostly in the form of insurance -- if any particular teacher happens to go all year without a medical emergency, most of those benefits simply go unused.
Similarly, while Stewart did point out the hypocrisy of the conservatives in supporting Wall Street financiers -- the ones responsible for destroying the economy through the abuse of synthetic collateralized debt obligations -- over teachers, he didn't complete the allegory. Not only are the financiers the ones who killed the global economy, after all, but the teachers are the ones who are responsible for teaching our youth to know better than to repeat the mistakes of the past, including those of the financiers themselves.
Governor Scott Walker, apparently, wants Wisconsin children to be stupid, Wisconsin unions to be unable to stand up to Wisconsin corporations in any way, and, of course, The People to have no say in either matter. Scott Walker, or the unions: which, in the end, is the greater enemy of The People?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 131
If you need to fire public employees to balance the budget, go right ahead. But do not claim the right to end collective bargaining, because that is pure politics.
But if Unions are willing to take significant cuts in wages and benefits, but want to keep their collective bargaining rights - what's wrong wit that? There should be some middle ground where everyone can agree.
there should be a middle ground, but Walker does not want to make the walk to reach it.
Maybe it's news to you but where do you think those benefits and pay come from? The taxpayer has no say in it and the unions buy their politicians like supposedly evil big business does.
Charles T. Mar 6, 2011, 12:19pm EST
what kind of idiot thinks they deserve the right to both elect a single party and solicit (wink wink) pay/benefits that surpass the average taxpayer?
Maybe it's news to you but where do you think those benefits and pay come from? The taxpayer has no say in it and the unions buy their politicians like supposedly evil big business does.
You can't really be naive enough to think you can get decent schools, police, fire, and other services for almost free, are you? Wait...
And yes you get your say with your vote for elected officials who negotiate with the unions. That's how the system works. You don't like the deal they cut, vote them out.
Hmm ... we did. And so did Wisconson voters.
But the few elected officials who negotiate with unions as well as endorse them who survived the election ... well, they ran away. They ran away rather than abide by the election results.
Their negotiating/endorsing party lost the election but they don't want to face the music they themselves composed; so they ran away.
Look at the wording of your comment, do you honestly believe this makes you either smarter or morally superior? Is it anything in any way contributing to this debate?
No, but it does show the arrogance that too many on the Left are showing on this particular subject. Using cops/teachers as the facade for the entire government union movement is an attempted smokescreen to cover the other, far less popular government workers. Then comes the attempted point of comparison between private sector paychecks for CEOs (paid for by shareholders) and TAXPAYER extracted paychecks for union workers who negotiate for increased pay/benefits with the very politicians they elect.
By the way, where are any teachers who work 8-9 months a year making the same or less than full time McDonald employees? Kenya?
Sure, I can vote for a politician but how come the big money that unions give their party isn't an issue? Such money when its from a business or individual is grounds for screams of corruption and theft of our liberty. Or is simply that WHO donates is more important than anything else?
I have seen some of the unions work... Example: A woman missing over 5o days of work, no sick slips and no hospital stay.. Just didnt go to work... A point system was in place.. She got fired... The union paid her bills for a few months until she had a hearing , she bragged that she would get her job back... She was never rehired but until her hearing her bills were paid..
We are changing, things are not as they were ten years ago... They ought to at least be happy that they have a job to go to.. Many others arent this lucky.... I think it is so childish and so outdated how they were being carried out by the police and before this sitting beating on drums and dancing around... Maybe, they are reliving the flower child days... I think its very immature and these people call themselves teachers and to think they were teaching your children.. I would fire them all..
Politician: "I need money and volunteers to get elected".
Union: "We have union dues paid for by taxpayers and unjion members will volunteer to help you get elected".
Politician gets elected.
Union: We want more people for our public workers. That will mean more union dues and more money to help you get re-elected"
Politician "No problem. We will just raise taxes or cut out services for our citizens. I will get you the money."
Politician: "I need money and volunteers to getre-elected".
Union: "We have union dues paid for by taxpayers and unjion members will volunteer to help you get elected".
Politician gets elected and the beat goes on and on and on and on.
Private sector unions know that if the company they are working for is losing money they will lose jobs or the company will close down and they will all be unemplohyed. Public sector union members don't care if we, the taxpayers who employ them are losing money or going broke. They expect top tier wages and cadillac benefits anyway. Tthe politicians who negotiate their pay
are concerned only with their political future, don't have any of their money at risk since it is the taxpayers who pay. It is a bad way to allocate limited resources.
~M
That's from the article above, by the way, which it is becoming increasingly obvious that you neither read nor understood. The only twisted facts you're being exposed to are the notions that the country is becoming more socialist. America is becoming LESS socialist, and has been since the 1970s. Furthermore, the most socialist acts that have been performed in the past decade have been performed by President Bush (TARP), not Obama.
The only double standard in play here is the one in your head, where you hold liberal beliefs to a higher standard (we have to provide facts) than you hold your own (you clearly don't research your own "facts", or you'd quickly see just how blatantly wrong you are.)
Have fun not impressing yourself there, David. :)
And how about talking for once about the hundreds of billions unions throw into elections both in direct cash/labor that makes anything the Kochs spend pale in contrast...
obviously, money isnt the issue. Maybe its the simple fact that we have taught the same way for over 200 years. Maybe the other global powers that invest in NEW WAYS to educate, actually have a good idea.
~M
I'm not so sure that's the or even one of the problems.
Here's what I mean --- When I was in school I remember things changing several times. One year we all "learned" Esperanto ... most of us couldn't understand the teacher even when he spoke English. After a couple of months ... Esperanto was no longer taught.
Then there was the year we had 'open' classrooms in which two or three classes were going at the same time in different parts of an open area. That lasted about a year and was dropped. Then there was 'new math' ... come and gone quickly and mercifully.
Phonics was in back then.
Then, when my children were young, phonics was out. Annnd, the kids were allowed, even encouraged to spell words any way they wanted to (the idea was that they'd eventually pick up the right spellings).
They were also encouraged to make their letters any way they felt like making them ... didn't want to oppress their creativity I guess ... Well, many of those children may have developed real creativity; but they can't write about it because they don't know how to spell or make their letters so that anyone can understand them. +shrug+
Combine all that kind of experimentation (and more) with whatever kind is going on currently while also taking into account the fact that young kids are being arrested by real police for silly things like hugging a friend, bringing an eating utensil from home, sharing candy from home with a friend and a whole host of other "offenses".
Remember also that some schools (at least one) also teach, and apparently encourage using school time to have abortions, go to gay marriage ceremonies as well as progressive protest rallies.
Then add in the time they take teaching our children (pregnant as well as unpregnant) about sex, diversity, and alternative family structure (and more I'm sure); layer that with the fact that at any given time the 'teacher' may or may not be the best at what he/she is teaching (but may have seniority and/or a very good union rep or a very poor principal) ... and it seems like sameness might be the least of the education system's problems.
That's not some whackjob conspiracy theory -- literally any economist in the world will tell you unhesitatingly and uncompromisingly that the gap between the rich and the poor has grown massively wider since 1970, and it's happened because the middle class has BECOME POOR. You'll find some conservative economists who will tell you that this isn't a bad thing -- but you'll also find that it's not all that difficult to prove them wrong if you give it a try.
Some economists will tell you that. Others will note that the cost of virtually every item people consume/use has gone down in real dollars and time worked to purchase equations. Other economists will tell you Repub deficits are bad, Dems are good. Still others will tell you Dem deficits are bad and Repubs good. Then there are economist that will note that we have more leisure time versus working time than ever before in history. Lots of economists' with positions out there and some will support ANY theory you come up with.
C'mon Micheal I'm starting to gain some more respect for you then you say this?
Baby J,
Wages have been flat for 30 years? Ahh yes, you must mean given inflation which comes about because government increases its spending beyond it's means to buy voter blocs. I mean I'm not still making $350 a month.
The economic pie is not a finite one and worrying about others successes does no one any good. Taxes (non user types) have largely been shifted onto that top 5% that classists worry about. God knows it no longer is a problem for the bottom 40 odd percent. The middle class DID fall for the credit gives you everything NOW idea pushed by government and Madison Avenue but they are wising up now while the government still lives on it.
The enemy in our economic system is not the rich, its the guys claiming they can make things "equal and fair" once they get just a bit more control over the economy itself.
They will tell you these things because it's proven fact. The rich are much, much richer, and middle-class income was $2000 lower at the end of the last economic upswing than it was at the beginning.
The idea that income inequality is on the rise due to a decrease in middle class wealth isn't arguable -- and that's exactly why every single economist you come across will tell you it's happening.
Well, I suppose you might find some bat***t insane ones here or there; there's always a few. But any REAL Scotsma...err, economist will tell you it's true, because it is. :)
As to taxes being shifted to the top 5%, that's a flawed argument on it's face. The top 5% pay 58.72% of all income taxes, but they control 69% of the wealth. They're getting off easy, by and degree of economic justice, they'd be paying 69% of the taxes.
That's not classism -- that's math.
Also, please cite a source that gives you any idea whatsoever that the government pushed credit on the middle class. I'm fairly certain that it wasn't the White House that convinced credit card companies to start sending pre-approved credit cards to people's housepets.
Your assertions may be correct, but your stats don't prove them. You're conflating wealth and income.
And you're right, I totally did conflate wealth and income. My bad on that one.
Ahh the malleable definitions of economic "justice" (defined by whom?) pops up. Now that is a perfect straw man.
Basically he's saying that the country isn't broke because there are people who live here who have lots of money they won't share?
Using Michael Moore's philosophy (just as a demonstration of how really silly and tragically greed and envy-laden it is) using his philosophy, if some people in my neighborhood borrowed too much, spent too much, gambled too much, and then lost their jobs and can't pay their bills (like the government has done and like unions are on the verge of having done so I hear), they wouldn't actually be broke because there are people living in their town, in their own neighborhood as a matter of fact, who have money they aren't sharing.
As that thought germinates in their minds, they turn their heads (collectively of course) toward the homes of all those horrible rich people near them. Because those other people who were better stewards of their own money and time are the rich people du jours who aren't sharing their 'wealth' with others. In fact, they say, 'we aren't broke,' the neighborhood is awash in wealth and cash.
What's the next step from there?
Well, someone has to figure out a way to get to all that free floating neighborhood wealth ... Hmm, those neighbors must have done something wrong to get that wealth; they must be racists and bigots and venture capitalists (or at least they support those things) ... maybe they even have employees who are oppressed by having to be on work on time or make things they don't want to make ... so it must be okay, is probably even noble, to just go take their extra wealth, cars, homes, and businesses from them.
And that process is never pretty whether it's a socialist uprising against a supposed bourgoise, or a guy who grabs an old lady's purse on a street corner.
Heh, heh Charles. ; >
No doubt some people have shady pasts and wealth they took at gun or pen point illegally. Build a case, prosecute, accept the finding of the court, appeal etc etc etc ...
If he did something illegal, take him to court. If he wriggles free, try again.
But if all he did was make lots of money (or inherit it - or invest in something that made him a wealthy man, or won the lottery, or found a buried treasure) ... get over it. It's his; not yours, not mine, not a national resource. His.
However, maybe your thoughts take a completely different bent such as perhaps all of his stuff should be to confis ... er nationaliz ... er social ... er taken from him. If so, then all it needs is to find some reason, some way, some rationalization for thieving it away from him.
+Shrug+ So like I noted ... those neighbors; geeee, they must have done something wrong to get that wealth.
You just know no one needs that much money; who do they think they are anyway the crooks? What right do they have to be rolling in all that wealth and luxury when there are starving kids in China?
Hmmm, ya know ...? Not only must they be some kind of crook or thief, they are probably racists and bigots and little Mubaraks (or at least they support those things) ... maybe they even have employees who are oppressed by having to be on work on time or make things they don't want to make ...
So, since that's the case, really it must be okay, is probably even the noble thing to do to just go take their extra wealth, cars, homes, and businesses from them.
However, that process is never pretty whether it's a covetous envious grasping socialist uprising against a supposed bourgoise, or a guy who grabs an old lady's purse on a street corner.
Michael Danielson Mar 6, 2011, 8:14pm EST
The fact that all of you seem to be forgetting is that most of the top 0.01% didn't earn their money -- they stole it. Check the Forbes 400 sometime, and actually research how many of them earned their money through hard work -- you know, the kind of hard work we're all told we have to put in?
This isn't arguable -- the numbers prove it.
And as the wealthy have slowly perverted the system to slide a greater and greater share of the national income into their own hands, they've also paid a huge amount of money into the media to get a lot of pundits screaming about redistribution of wealth in order to KEEP the oversized share they've obtained.
The inequitable distribution of wealth is the single greatest sociopoliticoeconomic problem our country has EVER faced, and the historical facts quite clearly point out how, even if any one individual rich person only played the game by the rules he was given, the rules themselves have been distorted and in some cases destroyed in order to make those rich individuals richer at the expense of the other 99.9% of the population.
THAT is the problem -- any amount of philosophical tomfoolery to the contrary is irrelevant.
Media biased against labor unions since the early 70s (You have to pay to read it, sorry, unavoidable.)
Gap between richest and poorest has widened dramatically over time.
Corporate control of the media has increased over time. (Sorry, you'll have to actually sit down and read this one, no soundbyte here.)
Corporate control of the government has increased over time. (Same.)
"Michael, you are smarter than this, use your skills to teach people to fish, rather than being dependant on handouts. "
In general, I agree with this, but the unemployment rate -- and the extreme inequity in the distribution of wealth that indirectly caused the unemployment rate -- requires special treatment. When 10% of your population can't find work even though they work their asses off looking for it, you have to stop worrying about handouts and start worrying about keeping them from starving to death while the rich people try to decide which car to buy next.
The current process, as you call it, is the MOST business-favorable economic climate we've had since the days of the robber barons. If business can't thrive with the lowest tax caps since Eisenhower and even the Democratic President scrambling to give them everything they think they need, it's business, not the public sector, that needs to re-examine its playbook.
The entire rhetoric that you're spouting is, unfortunately, almost completely divorced from the actual reality of our nation's economic situation.
You somehow think that all those unemployed (or under employed) are going to starve? In America? you know the place where the worst aspect of the national health is obesity? Did you know WIC/EBT(foodstamps) have to advertise to get more people enrolled? How do the rich fit in (especially under a Dem administration which only considers them revenue targets) with this grand plan to destroy the society they live in? Maybe they just love being revenue targets and objects for many to sneer at or hate. Or maybe they just feel they haven't got Americans mad enough to start a revolution and need to really kick up conspicuous consumption like having personal trainers fly to their place of residence several times a week from half way across the country?
If your grasp of economics (and history) is so dull that you can make such statements as the "most business favorable economic environment since the days of the robber barons" (American Gilded Age or medieval ones?) then I'll look forward to seeing more of your postings, at least for the humor of them.
Given all that, I find it hard to believe you can accuse anyone else of being divorced from our nation's economic reality.
And yes -- my mother in law being a nutritionist, I know very well exactly how easy and commonplace it is to starve to death while being obese. The difference between food that creates fat cells and food that sustains life is significant, and in many ways, obesity is considered by those who know to be an indicator of malnutrition (which is basically starvation only you get to eat while you die.) You don't want to get into this discussion with me, because I will happily derail the entire conversation absolutely burying you in evidence. :)
And if you want to talk about economic conditions since the robber barons, how about we talk about the top marginal tax rate? Or the deregulation of the financial industry? Or the simple amount of raw wealth in the hands of the wealthy, the likes of which hasn't been seen since right before the Great Depression?
You talk a good game, but like most of the other conservatives on this site, you have a really bad habit of not posting any evidence (or even mentioning any specific numbers) to back up your snide commentary.
Oh God you're going to keep telling me that starvation is a problem here? Just how commonplace is it in America? But then which is it, the government food aid programs failing those people or that they choose to eat empty calories? I'd love to hear your evidence that this (starvation) is a common problem in the States.
My snide commentary comes after reading yours. Okay, you have passion but the facts/sites you quote are talking points from your party. Power to you but don't expect everyone here to take them at face value.
Top marginal tax rate charts prove what? Oh yes the rich have had it much worse before (ignoring the simplicty of the old tax codes which did not target as much of one's varied forms of earnings/income for example). Check the numbers of people who actually paid those rates and please don't try that old line that high tax rates during the WW2/post war decades prove that they don't harm economic progress. That ignores what was happening world wide (WW2 itself, destruction of world's industrial infrastructure/rebuilding while US was intact etc).
My earlier points on sources for your evidence apply, cite those you wish of course but remember it'd be like me quoting Newsmax to you.
I didn't know the Left "gave" us roads, police, firemen, and teachers. I thought the Constitution enumerated roads as a Federal government function (National Defense Highway System). Police and firemen are a local thing (and in one form or another started in colonial times)...not many non Dems would think we shouldn't have them though there are arguments private ones might be better. Teachers came along in this part of the world during colonial days too before the Left was invented.
The rest of conservative politics -- the non-fiscal portion -- I'm actually mostly in support of.
So, let's begin. 99ers are people who have been out of work for more than 99 weeks and are thus unable to collect any more unemployment.
1 i n 6 Americans didn't get enough to eat last year. 1 in 4 children doesn't get enough food. Yes, Charles, we have a starvation problem. Please, for God's sake, do a little bit of your own research before you just assume that you know the truth!
The simplicity of the old tax codes, Charles, meant less loopholes -- much more of that top marginal tax rate actually applied, unlike today when a wealthy person has the OPTION of moving his money into a less-taxed form of wealth (15% capital gains tax vs. 36% income tax). The complexity you mention only makes things easier on the rich, not harder.
And I didn't say that the left gave us those things -- read carefully, and maybe you'll get it.
For someone who doesn't like either party, you do a remarkable job of using their talking points, especially the Dems. As for social agendas, I don't think it's an area for government to deal with.
Thanks for the definition (re: 99ers)...I thought it was actually some sports thing. Lots of things going on I don't get to stay tuned to.
Those food availability studies are pretty loosely worded. Asking a kid for instance if he had been hungry anytime during a set period is going to give you some ugly numbers. As a kid I was always hungry and though we were fairly poor-my parents always made sure there was chow on the table. A survey though would have made me a hungry statistic.
I do a bit of research actually and I still find the hunger problem to be vastly overrated in this country. Again, do not assume that because I don't agree with you that I'm deliberately ignorant.
The old tax codes didn't mean so much in the way of less loopholes than in the cold fact that the government taxed less and on fewer people. Your example of a loophole came about because both parties had members who understood that money used to invest had already been taxed, to them it was wrong to (at first) tax it again. Later when they decided it was another source of patronage revenue, they still thought it better to tax it less on the principle on double taxation was wrong but government needs were still more important than total adherence to principle.
Vickey: The left doesn't like to give up anything good for the taxpayers? So, you don't like having roads? Police? Firemen? Teachers? Hmm, still seems pretty self evidently a claim of the Left doing x, y, and z...
Let's talk about gun control, religion, abortion, or some other topic sometime.
Thank you Scott Walker.
You see, I have an alternate theory, for which I actually have support: poverty causes bad grades.
And as we can all admit by now, it's pro-corporate conservative fiscal policy that has been the greatest contributor to poverty in the past few decades -- and thus, the greatest contributor to our failing schools.
Let me further go on to contradict your theory directly:
If unions equal bad schools, how do you explain that fact?
You see, I have an alternate theory, for which I actually have support: poverty is caused by liberal policy.
Liberals had 50 years to fix poverty, do they need another 50 years?
What is the cost to get one person out of poverty? Liberals don't measure success.
Question, what would happen if we get rid of all corporate entities? That is called communism. The USSR tried that and it failed. China tried that and it failed. Those countries have started to prosper now that they are moving toward capitalism. Capitalism works every time it has tried and our schools are failing because of the union monopolies. Give parents the choice to pick what schools they use and see how long the public schools will stay in existence.
It's simple: when you take money away from the poor and give it to the rich, you create poverty. If you need more evidence, take a look at this:
Notice that with startling consistency, when the country is headed by a liberal leader, the poverty level goes down, and when there's a Republican president, it goes up -- specifically, it shoots up dramatically exactly in time with both the Reagan and the Bush tax cuts. Interestingly, however, when Reagan quietly reimplemented the taxes he had cut (in 1982 and then again in 1984), the poverty rate leveled out until Bush Sr. took office.
Now, regarding eliminating all corporate entities, you're once again creating a straw man and arguing against it. I never said we should eliminate corporations. Try arguing against something that I actually said, and we can have a meaningful discussion.
You used the phrase “pro-corporate conservative fiscal policy” and I call it capitalism. Thus if you are anti capitalism, you must be? A Communist? A Socialist? Or what? New York is far better than the less unionized states, yet they are almost all failing. Are we all too poor to learn? What does less unionized mean? Do you mean “Forced-Unionism” state vs. “Right to work” State?
You site:
"Legislation enacted under the Bush Administration provided taxpayers with about $1.7 trillion in tax cuts through 2008. Because high-income households received by far the largest tax cuts — not only in dollar terms but also as a percentage of income — the tax cuts have increased the concentration of after-tax income at the top of the spectrum."
Really, the top 5% of earned incomes, pay about 95% of the tax burden. It seems only reasonable that if the government takes too much out of the people, it should be returned to those who paid it and proportional to how much they paid. Those are also the people who create the majority of the jobs in this country and 100% of the value that can be taxed to pay for that government. In my mind the other 95% of the people in the country should thank the 5% for the gift. You are asserting that the 5% don’t pay enough? Are you really that selfish?
I will, however, say this: you are guilty of the fallacy of extremes. The opposite of "pro-corporate" is not "anti-corporate", no more than the opposite of "Christian" is "Satanist". There is a middle ground, and I'm firmly on it -- I just see that America has swung so far to the right in the past four decades that it needs to come significantly left in order to get back to the center, where it belongs.
And for the record, the top 5% of the earners only pay about 59% of all income tax -- but they control 69% of the wealth. In other words, not only are your "facts" trivially proven wrong, but the REAL facts clearly show that the wealthiest 5% aren't pulling their weight.
If you have 69% of the wealth, you should be paying 69% of the tax -- when in fact what's actually happening here is that the wealthy aren't paying their share, and they're foisting it off on the middle class. That's not a gift, that's the wealthy being selfish.
Next time, look your BS up before you post it, because you're just making yourself look foolish.
But they earned 34.7% of the income. Our INCOME tax is based on INCOME. If you want to tax wealth instead of income, perhaps you could suggest a new system.
Well in Wisconsin, private schools with non-union teachers outperform public schools with union teachers at half the cost. Based on your logic, that should be proof that unions hurt education.
Comparing entire states shows nothing because they all have their own sovereign education departments and policies. All that being said, private schools outperform public schools in the said states as well at lower costs. Go figure....
I rest my case and thanks for reinforcing my beliefs.
Jeff: You're conflating the effects of unionization of public schools with the effects of privatization of public schools. Two very different animals -- I have absolutely no doubt that a privatized school system will outperform a public school system most of the time -- but that has nothing to do with the fact that a unionized public school system outperforms a nonunionized public school system most of the time as well. In other words, for the umpteenth time on this page: straw man.
How hard is this, people? Cite your sources, and argue against what's actually being said, not against some straw man bullcrap that you make up on the fly. It's not difficult if you just put a tiny bit of effort into it.
(From the above:) "If teachers unions were to be blamed for failing schools, then we would assume that schools in less unionized states would outperform schools in more densely unionized states. So you'd assume that places like Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, who have relatively few unionized teachers would do much, much better. But that's not the case. The states with the most densely unionized teachers, Massachusetts, New York, Maryland; they do the best."
You're using the opinion of the president of the American Federation of Teachers as a source to make claims?
Where is any factual data to back up the claim? She could have just as easily compared IA, VA, ND to DC, NM, CA and come to the opposite conclusion.
I rest my case.
When you go to buy a car, the dealer does not look at how much you make and then quotes you a price, you pay the same price I pay regardless of what you make. Why then are taxes graduated, the rich pay more and the poor in some cases don’t pay anything. Some would say that is extreme. The fact is that we do have a graduated system and the rich do pay more than we the little people. Thus who said that your rules of defining how much the rich should pay is any better than mine? The problem with the graduated tax is that it pushes people to move money out of the country. I hear lately that New Zealand is good right now. If that money leaves, then jobs go with it. Can we afford that?
That's called "willful stupidity".
And no one is talking about milking the rich dry. Why must you conservatives always argue extremes as though there is no middle ground? All I want is for the gap between the rich and the poor to be closer to what it was in the late 60's/early '70s, and for the middle class to exist again like it used to. For the last time, I'm not a socialist -- I'm not even anti-capitalist. But what I AM is very firmly anti-corporatist. Since Reagan, the corporations have taken control of the government, and that shift in how the country is run has royally screwed up almost every aspect of our society.
For the record, let me link you to what my actual political beliefs are so that you can start arguing against what I'm actually saying instead of what you want me to be saying: Michael's Politics.
Now then, if you'd like to provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims that
1) the Founding Fathers wanted the US to be even further to the right than it is now
and
2) the graduated tax encourages people to move money out of the country
I'll be happy to prove you wrong -- again. Until you engage in something other than "I'm right because mah gut tellz me so", however, this conversation is useless.
-Benjamin Franklin
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
George Washington
-- Benjamin Franklin
-- James Madison
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Thomas Jefferson
Alexander Hamilton
John Adams
Or, to answer in kind:
"It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."
-- President Abraham Lincoln, presaging the rise of the robber barons and the subsequent near-destruction of the Republic that was the Great Depression.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
"The growing wealth aquired by them [corporations] never fails to be a source of abuses."
--President James Madison
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House
I think really that the problem here is that all of you look at the country and you see the problems inherent in a government that has overstepped it's Constitutional authority. I see that -- but I also see a government that has been purchased wholesale by corporate interests, starting in the early 1970s.
And then I look at the period of prosperity for the middle class, enormous civil rights advances, and world superiority that existed from the 1940s until that moment of corporate takeover. And then I look at the flat wages (in stark contrast to massively increased productivity) -- and the huge wealth gap -- and the merciless bending of the government to the will of the corporate world -- that have happened since the 1970s, and I can't help but think that all of the good that happened back when government was overstepping it's bounds WITHOUT corporate interference would be kind of nice to have back.
I mean, let's talk enlightened self-interest. How many of you are middle-class Americans? Do you know what's happening to you?:
You see, all of those wonderful quotes about not giving to people who won't work don't apply anymore because the people that are unemployed and needy today would be absolutely pleased as punch to have the opportunity to be working -- but they can't. They can't because the Wall Street financiers that invented the synthetic collateralized debt obligation got so caught up in their profit margins that they collapsed the entire economy. You act as though, all of the sudden in the end of 2007, 10 million Americans suddenly became lazy ne'er-do-wells, and that's not only wrong, it's literally sick in the head.
But, I'm feeling froggy, so let's go through quote by quote.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.â€
-Benjamin Franklin
--- true, but also not a left/right division -- both liberals and conservatives vote themselves money constantly; one through social safety nets and the other through tax breaks.
To take from one [who] has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who...have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.â€
-- True again. I wonder what TJ would say about a system that takes from a hard-working, double-job-holding single mother and puts that money into the hands of a Wall Street financier whose hardest work is shagging his secretary and figuring out how to sell junk bonds to school districts? A system wherein the free exercise of industry is actively punished and the free exercise of corruption is called "innovation" and awarded with bonus checks that would literally, in one year, pay for the entire lifetime of the single mother in question?
(Ignoring the Washington quote because there's not anything there that applies at all to the liberal/conservative debate.)
""I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. "
-- Damn straight! What would Ben Franklin say if he saw the system in place today that leads the majority of Americans IN to poverty, by keeping wages flat for decades at a time so that the only options to stay afloat are working more hours and getting credit -- credit which is designed from the ground up to inexorably lead to further poverty?
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."
-- Wouldn't it be great if the IRS rewrote the tax code according to this little gem? We could get rid of all of the loopholes by which corporations manage to pay almost no taxes whatsoever, and the tricks and tools by which the very wealthy manage to pay less than, as Warren Buffet famously mentioned, their own secretaries.
"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Sweet! Does that mean that I can stop paying my taxes altogether because I don't want America to be at war in Afghanistan, or because I don't support the corn subsidy, or because I don't like the fact that some miniscule portion of my tax money goes to pay the retirement packages of my former Representatives in Congress? Because I'd sure love that.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… "
Wow, Clark, kudos to you for employing Fox News-like editing on your quote, there! You left out, what, 80% of it? Let's look at the WHOLE thing:
So, yeah, that was from a document in which Hamilton was arguing against the ability of Congress to put bounties on specific occupations, and suffice it to say that Clark's editing job was...well, if I edited my quotes like that, I could handily prove that George Bush was a big fan of Stalin and wanted the US to become a tributary state of Burma.
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
John Adams"
This is SO TRUE -- but then, which side do you think Adams would have less respect for: the one that wants to take tax money from you and use it to support the public justice, or the one who wants to allow Wall Street to obliterate the laws that prevent them from imposing economic tyranny over the people -- thus taking their property?
I know, this was a very long response, but I hope I've made my point.
“None of them address the fact that corporate interests have purchased the government -- that the very concept of a government by, for, and of the People no longer exists because the wealthy have discovered that they can manipulate the rules to their own ends”
My question is what entities, GE, Google, SEIU, ACORN, Center for Progressive Leadership, Media Matters, Progress Now, the Soros family (George who has ties to known communists and socialists), or were you thinking of other entities?
“I'm not a socialist -- I'm not even anti-capitalist. But what I AM is very firmly anti-corporatist. Since Reagan, the corporations have taken control of the government, and that shift in how the country is run has royally screwed up almost every aspect of our society.”
What is the difference between anti-corporatist and anti-capitalist?
Can you define who the modern day robber barons are and the laws they have broken? If you are aware of crime, you have a moral obligation to point this out so that this type of behavior is punished.
“The overall picture is abundantly clear: real average hourly ages of more than 100 million of American workers' are less today than 25 years ago; real wages of college educated workers have risen only modestly in the late 1990s and fallen since under Bush II; and real wages of the 10 million lowest paid workers have declined more than 21%.
Given this irrefutable array of facts, one might ask 'how has the American worker and his or her family survived the last quarter century under Reagan and Bush'? The answer is by working longer hours -- individually and as a family unit -- and by taking on more and more household debt; both in lieu of hourly wage gains.”
“irrefutable array of facts” ya, you can do better. I really do not think that you can blame that on RR, GB, BC, or GWB. That decline started back as women entered the work force. Remember when a man could go to work and earn a modest living for his family. Clearly I would not blame this on women, I am only saying that there is far more going on and for much longer than your so called facts represent.
“If it were not for working these longer hours worked, or adding record amounts of family debt (installment, mortgage, student loan, etc), the standard of living of the American worker and his family would have certainly collapsed.“
This I can agree with, but it is the combined hours of both parents that have allowed us to maintain the standard of living over the past 60 years, at the expense of the family.
I really do not think that “10 million Americans suddenly became lazy ne'er-do-wells” although there is some data that says that most find work shortly after the 99 weeks of unemployment runs out. I also agree that the “Wall Street financiers that invented the synthetic collateralized debt obligation got so caught up in their profit margins that they collapsed the entire economy.” Well almost, the economy did not collapse entirely but it still could and if we don’t get a real handle on our spending, it will collapse us into a depression worse than anything we have seen. Nor do I think they invented it. President Carter signed into law the community reinvestment act that was the ticking time bomb, that allowed banks or encouraged them to do things that were not in the best interest of the bank. Carter intended no harm, but now those who received loans that they could not afford have no credit at all and can’t even buy a car. So much for good intensions.
How about Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, CitiGroup, Google, and JPMorgan Chase, just for starters? Of course, that's just the barest teenist tiniest tip of the iceburg, but it's indicative of a much deeper problem.
"What is the difference between anti-corporatist and anti-capitalist?
Can you define who the modern day robber barons are and the laws they have broken? If you are aware of crime, you have a moral obligation to point this out so that this type of behavior is punished."
Anti-corporatist is what the Founding Fathers were. (That's an except from an excellent book called Culture Jam.
Anti-capitalist means you don't want people to be able to compete in a market. I'm all for marketplace competition, I'm just acutely aware that if unregulated, it leads to the situation we have today: 85% of the wealth in the hands of 20% of the people and almost zero wage mobility. That's the opposite of the American Dream.
And the whole idea of corporations controlling the government is that they've changed the laws so that they don't have to keep breaking them to further their power. Witness the Supreme Court decision early last year that removed all limits on corporate campaign contributions, and the subsequent midterm in which conservatives got twice the contributions of liberals.
"I really do not think that you can blame that on RR, GB, BC, or GWB."
You still don't get it -- I don't blame it on the politicians. The politicians are just tools; mouthpieces who must appeal to the corporations if they intend to get enough campaign funding to continue their careers.
There are really only three groups that have enough money to affect how political battles happen in this country: the corporations, the unions, and the independently wealthy. Most of the last group are pretty heavily invested in the first group, so they tend to spend the same way. The inequitable distribution of wealth means that the wealthy can outspend the combined might of the unwealthy by an order of magnitude and the sheer gulf in numbers between corporate and union campaign contributions prove the rest.
The People don't really have a say in it anymore. That -- at it's heart -- is the problem.
Secondly, if D's are so interested in students and their education why don't they give parents choice, in the forms of vouchers, and let them send their kids to the school they think is best for the kids. Parents are more interested in getting their kids a top notch education than anyone else is. If the vouchers were available there would be more private schools open up which would increase competition and make the public schools better.
The argument that much of the teachers' pay is in benefits isn't any different than the private sector. Income is the total of wages and benefits. Walker is trying to get the teachers to contribute amounts to insurance and retirement that are more in line with what the private sector workers pay. The argument that if someone doesn't use insurance for a year means that money is gone is just as true for private sector workers as it is for the teachers.
Opponents make it sound like he is taking away all collective bargaining rights which is not true. They still bargain for wages and working conditiions, but not for their pension or health insurance contributions. If he hadn't done that a future governor could just give in to their demands and they would be on the same treadmill they are on now.
I live in Oregon and the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is breaking the bank. Workers are retiring with lifelong health insurance and up to 75% of the pay they received in their top 2 earning years. Because of that they often get as much overtime in the last 2 years so the retirement is based on that. Some are retiring with as much or more than their before overtime wages.
A few years ago they were guaranteed 8% return on their retirement fund. Additionally, if the fund returned 14% they got 14%. If the return was only 4% they got the guaranteed 8% anyway and kept the surplus from the 14%. That is not sustainable and has to be changed because the taxpayers can't afford it.