Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       02-24-2011, 9:13 AM Reply   
This is pretty interesting. It is amazing to see how little 100 million really is. I guess they need to start somewhere but I have a feeling this is just to make headlines and think they are actually doing something to decrease the defecit.

http://wimp.com/budgetcuts/
Old    Doug H (doug2)      Join Date: Jan 2004       02-24-2011, 9:28 AM Reply   
In other news, the Fed is purchasing between $4 and 6 billion in US Treasuries today.

Yes, we have no bananas...
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       02-28-2011, 9:51 AM Reply   
Let's clarify he is removing $100 million from a proposed budget that still increases the current budget, so it's really not a cut in spending, regardless of the how insignificant and tiny the amount.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       02-28-2011, 10:49 AM Reply   
Sadly, Obama didn't cut enough for Boehner to keep his $3 billion backup jet engine that the Pentagon didn't want. Fortunately for all of us the fed can create money out of thin air and the rest of the world will suck it up because they are dependant on our economy.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-01-2011, 7:34 AM Reply   
Let's be honest here, neither party is serious about reducing the debt. If they were, they would not have extended the Bush tax cuts, which for the next two years is going to cost us 544.3 billion dollars.
Old    RileyBangerter (steezyshots)      Join Date: Feb 2008       03-01-2011, 8:34 AM Reply   
This is pretty interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/fiercefreeleancer

Has nothing to do with Obama really. Just the $&*! we are paying for so the rich get way richer

Last edited by steezyshots; 03-01-2011 at 8:36 AM.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       03-01-2011, 9:20 AM Reply   
Just another token gesture so the uneducated and uninformed think he's great. Simple solution, cut spending until there is a large surplus, use it to pay back the debt. If these crooks robbing us at gunpoint can't pick where to cut spending, just randomly pick things, draw straws, drag names out of a basket, etc. until there is a surplus. Pretty simple really. Less government = less spending. There is very little (if anything at all) that the government does that is required for us to function in our lives.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       03-01-2011, 9:43 AM Reply   
"Simple solution, cut spending until there is a large surplus, use it to pay back the debt."

I wouldn't say simple. Pulling too much money out of the economy would likely tank the economy and put us back into recession (or into a deeper recession) and possibly into a depression. Our debt is definitely way too high thanks to years and years of overspending and poorly spent money, but it's tough to get rid of without causing other problems. It's also tough get so many different politicians (that want to get re-elected) to agree on what to cut.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-01-2011, 9:50 AM Reply   
As long as the world is hooked on the American dollar we can overspend and create new money all we want.
Old    SamIngram            03-01-2011, 11:44 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Let's be honest here, neither party is serious about reducing the debt. If they were, they would not have extended the Bush tax cuts, which for the next two years is going to cost us 544.3 billion dollars.
I love how cavalierly people talk about the "Bush Tax Cuts" and other people's money. It is not the government's money, it belongs to the people who earned it. Why should rich people be forced to pay more than anyone else? Because they are successful? Why don't the freaking poor people get off their ass and pay their fair share? Just because they are lazy, stupid, unlucky, etc... shouldn't mean they don't have to pay anything. Why can't we all just pay 15% of our yearly INCOME for taxes? The guy who makes $30K/year pays $4,500 in taxes, the guy who makes $150K/year pays $22,500 and the guy who makes $1,000,000 pays $150,000. Why reward the poor? If we taxed them the same as everyone else maybe they would get off their ass, work harder, get educated, etc.. versus living off the government teet!

I'll tell you why, because in our society we reward the loser, and punish the winner. Some people think they have a right to other peoples money. They think we should redistribute the wealth. This is socialism.

Spread the Wealth Around


This is part of the Cloward/Piven Plan. The following is from Cloward and Piven in 1966:

It is our purpose to advance a strategy which affords the basis for a convergence of civil rights organizations, militant anti-poverty groups and the poor. If this strategy were implemented, a political crisis would result that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty.

[snip]

A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.

The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income–will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income.

[snip]

A federal program of income redistribution has become necessary to elevate the poor en masse from poverty.

Every one of Obama's policies reward the loser and penalize the winner.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-01-2011, 12:50 PM Reply   
Sam, news flash. All poor people pay 15% of their salary as a tax before they even start paying income tax. That means the guy who makes $30K pays $4500 + $4500 in taxes (assuming the $4500 number you gave is correct). And there are plenty of wealthy investors who don't have to pay a dime over 15% no matter how much they make.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-01-2011, 12:52 PM Reply   
Sam, what about my post says anything about "punishing the rich, and rewarding the poor"?

"Bush tax cuts: $544.3 billion. The package would extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone for two years.

The bulk of that cost -- $463 billion -- is for the extension of cuts for families making less than $250,000, including two years of relief for 2010 and 2011 for the middle class from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

The rest -- $81.5 billion -- is attributable to the extension of cuts that apply to the highest income families."

Did I say anything about giving the middle class (i.e. households that make less than $250,000) the tax cuts, but not the wealthy? I think the tax cuts should have ceased for everyone, and this includes me and my family. Did I side with the Democrats? No, I ostracized both parties for continuing the tax breaks. Why do you find it necessary to change the subject? I didn't even bother to read what you posted below the Youtube link because it has absolutely nothing to do with my original post. I think it is going to take drastic measures to reduce the debt. To think that you can extend tax cuts that cost the country half a trillion dollars for the next two years AND reduce the country's debt is asinine. It shows that the GOP is no more serious about reducing the debt than their Democratic counterparts. Both parties are to blame for the mess we are in, and no Youtube link or anything else you choose to post can contest that.
Old    SamIngram            03-01-2011, 1:03 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Sam, news flash. All poor people pay 15% of their salary as a tax before they even start paying income tax. That means the guy who makes $30K pays $4500 + $4500 in taxes (assuming the $4500 number you gave is correct). And there are plenty of wealthy investors who don't have to pay a dime over 15% no matter how much they make.
BS, they get a return and many, many people end up paying nothing...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-01-2011, 1:41 PM Reply   
Sam, are you calling BS on your own post? You are the one who claimed a person who makes $30K pays $4,500. The number you posted is what you are disputing.

Everyone who works pays 15% fica tax, no matter what the job. AFAIK, there are no deductions for FICA except a sec 125 HI plan.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       03-02-2011, 5:03 AM Reply   
Our economic treatment of the lazy is simply riot control. Its a simple plan, you reduce their comfort expectation to nothing, then give just enough to maintain that comfort. As you can see in other countries today, a heart-felt riot can get legs in a hurry.

Our government was put together for one purpose,and that is to protect the shores and to enforce the laws of the land. All the social crap is just fluff that we have allowed our government to get in to. The government should not be allowed to participate in capitalism because the government cant fail. As long as they have taxing power, they have income to throw at bad endeavors, and they have any incentive to fix them.

Social Security is a bad idea. Its well kown to be a bad idea. It has a mathmatic flaw in it that everyone has known for 30+ years, yet we have done nothing about it. Welfare is an abuse riddled system, and weve known it forever, yet we do nothing about it. Why? Because those who are paid to oversee them (government) have nothing at risk if they are run poorly.

Bottom line is that people here have the OPPORTUNITY to handle their own business. How they do so and their success rate is entirely up to them. Their failure should not be subsidized by the government.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-02-2011, 7:35 AM Reply   
I believe FICA tax is split with the employer, so you really only pay 7.5%.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-02-2011, 8:56 AM Reply   
Paul, that is correct but doesn't really mean anything. If you are self employed mowing lawns all 15% comes out of your pocket. If you are not self employed the govt is charging your employer a 7.5% tax on *your* services. No matter how you spin it there's a 15% tax not related to income tax that is paid for every wage earner.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-02-2011, 2:31 PM Reply   
If every person had to pay out of their pocket what is owed, taxes would be reduced almost immediately regardless of your political leanings.

"Let's be honest here, neither party is serious about reducing the debt. If they were, they would not have extended the Bush tax cuts, which for the next two years is going to cost us 544.3 billion dollars. "

I think you need to check out what is going on in Wisco right now. If you think this Governers actions are some sort of political stunt, you need to check out his record as the Milwaukee County Exec. The guy is for real and depending on the outcome of the current situation, could very well be heading for a presdential bid. He will have a lot of juice with Fiscal Consveratives if he can handle the Unions.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-02-2011, 3:22 PM Reply   
^The unions have conceded to most of the governor's demands, but he still insists on ending collective bargaining, why? I also read that 83% of the corporations do not pay taxes in WI. If fighting the unions was "not some sort of political stunt", why doesn't he start leaning on the corporations to start paying some taxes? If you really look at it, all the governor has accomplished so far is to strengthen the union.

P.S. I have no union affiliation.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-03-2011, 5:37 AM Reply   
"^The unions have conceded to most of the governor's demands, but he still insists on ending collective bargaining, why? "

Ok, here is the best way I can lay it out. In WI, 2/3 of funding for local schools come from the State and a 1/3 from local governments. This is a set precentage. There is a need to cut spending at the state level (teachers in WI by the way, are paid quite well compared to other states). The state level cut is exasberated by the fact that the local level funding is then cut also (to stay at 1/3 of the states total funding). The reason it is a good thing to end collective bargaining, is it gives the power to the local districts to manage their teacher load without a very powerful special interest group controling their moves. Right now teachers have control and no power is giving to the local districts. Additionally, all the outrage is over the fact that teachers will now have to pay a percentage of their healthcare (gee, doesn't every private sector employee already do this) and a couple other benefits changes that align them with private sector-style benefits. Keep in mind, the amount they are giving up is no where near what private sector employees have been doing.

It's a non-issue, that has blown out of proportion. Funny how no one is talking about the same types of changes occuring in Colorado....oh wait, that's right, it's a Dem. Governor.


"I also read that 83% of the corporations do not pay taxes in WI. If fighting the unions was "not some sort of political stunt", why doesn't he start leaning on the corporations to start paying some taxes?"

This is totally bogus! Where did you get this information? Taxes are quite high in WI based on both corporate and land taxes. Now moves have been made over the last decade to try in make WI a more inviting place to do business, i.e. the creation of new jobs, to draw in more people, to raise the standard of living and increase the population (all things most cities consider positives).

Not really sure how you can compare the two.

"If you really look at it, all the governor has accomplished so far is to strengthen the union."

That is yet to be decided. Another thing to understand, Unions are mandatory in WI for Public sector jobs. Teachers have no choice but to join the Union. A lot of states have moved away from this setup, allowing teachers to choose whether they want to be in the Union (look at Flordia). Again, not really sure why this would be a bad thing.


Unfortunately, I read all this as politics as usual. The only reason any one cares, is because it's a Republican Governer trying to make massive changes to make a difference in a state whose fiscal house is not in order. Time for perpetually angry and obstinate to get out of the way and allow progression through. Another term that is only used, if the idea is coming from the left, progression.....lol!

Sorry for rambling, just trying to shed light on the political climate in Wisco. I still have a lot of family living there, so I have kept kinda close tabs on this issue. Peace man!
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-03-2011, 4:43 PM Reply   
"This is totally bogus! Where did you get this information? Taxes are quite high in WI based on both corporate and land taxes."

My 83% was something I read, maybe not totally reliable. But this is something that you may find interesting:

"For starters, all manufacturing machinery and equipment is exempt from property taxes. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue estimates that about $12 billion worth of property is tax-exempt under this law. If taxed at the state's average tax rate, this would generate about a quarter-billion dollars in new annual revenue.

Business computers are also exempt from property tax, under a definition of 'computer' broad enough to include automated bank tellers and computerized cash registers. In this case, the state annually reimburses local governments approximately $80 million in lost revenue.

Then there are the business services untouched by the sales tax. A 5% sales tax on advertising would generate more than $100 million a year, the Department of Revenue estimates. A sales tax on computer consulting would yield more than $130 million. A sales tax on accounting would produce nearly $60 million. And so on.

Finally, there are numerous breaks from the corporate income tax. These include scores of individual business-assistance programs that give tax credits for such things as research ($18 million annually) and investment in so-called development zones (about $14 million).

The growth of these business-tax exemptions is clear from looking at long-term trends. Thirty years ago, residential property accounted for half of all state property taxes. Today, homeowners pay 70% of all property taxes, as the business contributions have dropped.

Twenty years ago, 10% of the state's tax revenue came from the corporate income tax. Today's share is barely half that.

The picture is even starker when it comes to the income tax. The state Department of Revenue reports that most Wisconsin businesses pay zero corporate income tax. For example, of the 4,275 companies that filed returns in 2003 showing annual receipts of more than $100 million, 62% paid absolutely no corporate income tax.

Obtaining company-specific tax information is cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming. Among other things, the state requires requesters to provide the corporation's name and mailing address exactly as they appear on the corporation's tax return, which is itself a confidential document.

But a 14-month process of requesting data on hundreds of companies doing business in Wisconsin yielded surprising results. Among the companies that in 2003 paid no income tax are some big names: McDonald's, Merck, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Kimberly-Clark, Johnson Controls (the largest Wisconsin-based firm), Kohl's and Snap-on Tools.

The S.C. Johnson family of companies is especially noteworthy. Emerging from the Johnson Wax company, based in Racine, are a handful of large firms, including Johnson Financial Group, Johnson Bank, Johnson Outdoors, JohnsonDiversey, along with the original S.C. Johnson & Son. From 2000 through 2004, not a single one of these firms paid a cent in Wisconsin corporate income tax.

There's nothing sinister in these firms' tax avoidance. It's smart business. It's legal. It's part of the Welcome Wagon that Wisconsin brings out for big business. It's part of the pitch that Forward Wisconsin uses to lure business.

But WMC refuses to concede the point. WMC chairman Terry D. Growcock has attacked what he called 'excessive corporate taxation.' WMC president James Haney has called for 'eliminating the corporate income tax.'

How do the firms behind WMC fare when it comes to the corporate income tax? Tax data from 2004 were obtained for 22 firms with executives sitting on WMC's board of directors. Twelve of the 22, including Growcock's Manitowoc Company, paid zero state corporate income tax."
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-04-2011, 6:19 AM Reply   
As I stated earlier. A big issue a couple decades ago, was losing companies. I don't have a problem with the way this is being handled, because I think it's important to encourage companies to continue to do business in Wisco so Milwaukee doesn't end up looking like Detroit.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-04-2011, 6:40 AM Reply   
^That's fine, but I believe it is erroneous to give tax breaks and then blame the unions for the financial standing of your state.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-04-2011, 7:12 AM Reply   
First, it's not my state, but I totally disagree with you that anybody is blaming the Unions for the financial standing of the state. It's just one piece in a very large puzzle. As I said, by making this change, it gives more control to local districts to arbitrate with teachers.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-04-2011, 8:22 AM Reply   
Skubz, the "your" wasn't directed at you, it was aimed at the governor. Why is arbitrating with teachers so important? Should the districts be able to pay underpaid teachers even less? What a way to attract people into the profession.

You are right about it being one piece of the puzzle, a small minute piece, there are several larger pieces that should command more attention from lawmakers in WI.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-04-2011, 9:00 AM Reply   
Anytime unproductive citizens are rewarded for benig unproductive--and in some case counteroproductive--the government has overstepped its bouudaries and discourages investment and production. That video sums up the new liberal Democratic idea. It's simple. People who work shoud get a fair wage. People who are able to work shoud not be getting money from people who do. Too much deadwood can sink a ship.
Old    Brett Yates (polarbill)      Join Date: Jun 2003       03-04-2011, 9:26 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Skubz, the "your" wasn't directed at you, it was aimed at the governor. Why is arbitrating with teachers so important? Should the districts be able to pay underpaid teachers even less? What a way to attract people into the profession.

You are right about it being one piece of the puzzle, a small minute piece, there are several larger pieces that should command more attention from lawmakers in WI.
Do teachers unions actually award being a good teacher or just your tenure? In general it seems Unions lead to workers being rewarded on tenure instead of performance. This breeds laziness and doing the absolute minimum to get by. I am not sure that the profession would be better off without the union but at least then good teachers would receive better compensation, they could actually fire the bad teachers and the profession as a whole would become stronger with better members. This could basically be applied to every industry that there are unions. Unions have a terrible outlook. They would rather see everybody get their raise no matter what it is going on then lose terrible members or take pay cuts as a whole when the economy is bad. They would rather see the industry/business pack up and leave/close their doors then actually give up some of their compensation so the industry/business can survive. In my opinion Unions absolutely hinders the US economy from being able to compete in an international economy. They need to either lower the price of labor or have laborers who produce significantly products.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-04-2011, 12:03 PM Reply   
Brett, you raise several valid points. (Again, I am not currently a union member, but I am an educator and I will soon become a member of the NEA). I agree somewhat that unions do reward tenure over performance. You mention rewarding good teachers, but what is your definition of a good teacher? My definition may vary from your definition, and I am not implying that your definition is wrong and mine is right or vice versa. But there in lies an issue, how do you determine a good teacher; test scores, student conduct, etc? This is why I am against performance based pay in education. If you go solely on test scores, this puts teachers in poorer parts of a district (i.e. rural, inner city) at a disadvantage with their counterparts at a suburban school where the median income and education level is higher. You may respond, "those teachers should go to another school". This presents another issue as to who is going to teach at the inner city schools? States are mandated to provide public education so there has to be schools for students.

So my response to defending the teacher's union, while the union is not perfect the alternative is not perfect either. The union offers a bit of job security, provided you have tenure, which is important, IMO. Teachers are constantly receiving the blame for student's performance, which in many instances, is misdirected. Parents in many cases refuse to accept any responsibility for their child's educational performance and are looking to pass the buck and I have observed this first hand. Am I saying that teachers are never to blame, of course not, but they are not always to blame either.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       03-04-2011, 12:19 PM Reply   
Well said wake77. I would say polarbill is painting a very broad brush against unions. This issue against public workers is just a class war started by the upperclass. It will just hurt all the middle class in the end. Do you really think taxes or prices will go down when unions are defeated? Everything will remain unchanged, but the rich will become richer
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-04-2011, 1:51 PM Reply   
Apparently we need a federal union that covers every worker in America and gives them a contract for employment. Why should a teacher get a union when a burger flipper doesn't? This way no business can hire a worker without a contract negotiated at the federal level.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-04-2011, 3:19 PM Reply   
Your right John, lets go ahead and lower their pay too. Maybe change the requirement from having a Bachelors to just having a diploma.
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       03-04-2011, 4:27 PM Reply   
I think you're missing the point of the original post. Social Security, Medicare / Medicade, defense, unemployment / welfare & interest on debt make up over 80% of the US budget. The banks and corporate greed are responsible for the current recession, yet they were bailed out. Wall Street is rich after taking the working man's savings / retirement and are at it again. Now tell me again how the evil public employee unions are the ones to blame for our current problems? If only the politicians went after the rich bankers like they are going after unions today.

Keep being brainwashed by the GOP propaganda. Studies have shown public pay is in line with the private sector (actually lower when the economy was booming). These people being made out as the villains are the educated middle class teachers, firefighters & police officers. Majority of them do work hard and do care about the US and it's industry. My association came to the table and voluntarily took furloughs and gave up over 5% in pay. We laid off 100 workers last year and another 150 were issued pink slips this week. How much do public employees need to bleed to call it "even"?

According to you, the unions are the reason why the US cant compete in a manufacturing world market. Have you been to India, China or Indonesia? We cant compete because they pay children .25 cents a day for hard labor. Be careful what you wish for.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-04-2011, 4:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
This way no business can hire a worker without a contract negotiated at the federal level.
This'll do WONDERS for creating new jobs!
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-04-2011, 5:09 PM Reply   
McGavin, I don't think people are saying that public worker unions are the cause of the economic problems. The issue is when the economy tanks how does the local govt handle the loss of revenue. I can tell you one way they handled here. They increased fees.

So the state govt's answer to people having trouble in this economy was to charge them more for services.

Jeremy... so are saying that people with bachelor degrees need a union to keep their salary up, but people with a diploma don't? I'm not sure if that's the logic you were trying to get across.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-04-2011, 8:14 PM Reply   
No, that is not what I am saying. For the most part, we require our educators to have extensive training. The state does very little to ensure job security for a public school teacher, even for a good teacher. And the way you say "keep their salary up" comes across as teachers' salaries are out of line. In the school system in which I reside, they have not given a raise to teachers in over three years. We insist on having top-notch educators, yet we offer low-level compensation. Do you know of any teacher that is rich (from what they have earned being an educator)?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-05-2011, 4:21 PM Reply   
I have extensive training and no job security. The way I keep my salary up is to make sure I have valuable skills. I don't even have an assocation with lobbiests making laws to benefit my chosen occupation. So consequently I have no reason to believe anyone else should have special legal privilages, which unions do have.

The biggest problem with fixed benefit pensions is that they are unfunded liabilities, unlike other retirement plans. Even private industry pensions have govt backing. Local and state govts can't create money out of thin air like the federal govt. So I don't belive they should be creating these liabilities for future tax payers.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-05-2011, 9:21 PM Reply   
Jeremy read the attached article, like I said before, it's totally blown out of proportion. Teachers are being the most vocal, but it is all public employees in the state of Wisconsin outside public safety workers. This is a large number of people in WI.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....oposed-reforms


Your comments about business to me continues to advocate the same ideas being proposed by those who I feel are not really getting it:

If you can't budget $100, chances are you can't budget $1,000. If you can't budget $1,000 you probably won't be able to budget a million. Bringing in more money (e.g. tax businesses higher), without getting the budget in order and the processes involved in managing the budget, regardless of how much money is raised, is not the right solution. WI will just be in the same situation again.

To think that Unions are not a powerful, corrupt, and a controlling special interest group in this country and just as much as any "evil" business, is flawed thinking in my opinion.


Sorry for hijacking this thread....back to the original topic.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-06-2011, 3:35 PM Reply   
"But government-worker unions in Wisconsin, with some notable exceptions, have largely agreed to most of the increased contributions. The main problem for the protesters deals with how the reforms affect their unions and collective bargaining."

This is directly from the link you posted Skubz. The unions have conceded to almost everything the governor is demanding. The only thing they are unwilling to concede is collective bargaining. Even if the unions conceded collective bargaining, it will more than likely not contribute to any further savings to the the state and definitely not the billions that the state is short on balancing the budget. So where does the state then go? Part of me wishes the unions would unilaterally agree to ending collective bargaining just so the taxpayers could witness firsthand that this will have little effect. Again, this is strictly a political move. Fighting the unions is a GOP agenda which is eerily misguided, but you have bitten hook line and sinker. I'm not siding with all unions, but you have the unions to thank for overtime pay, a 40 hr workweek, etc.

John, you use the same argument that is used over and over. You act as though membership in the union guarantees an educator can't be fired, not true, or that they are getting us regular raises, not true. Their primarily responsibility is aiding those that instruct our nation's youth. If the money was great or the benefits were so awesome, this country should have a surplus of teachers. We need more teachers, so why don't you look into becoming one?
Old    McGavin (Shooter)      Join Date: Apr 2010       03-06-2011, 8:00 PM Reply   
http://widget.newsinc.com/2700.htm

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:38 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us