507,533 Signatures Collected As Of Today

[Bern80]

Do the private employees work less hard?

Is this a serious question? Of course not. Their unions make sure they don't have to. Get it? Work less for more of other people's money. I'd say that's a great deal if I didn't actually have a shred of integrity.

 

[Provocateur]

Uh, we're discussing the Wisconsin recall. Does it have to happen to me personally before I'm allowed to say anything?

Yes we are discusssing the WI recall.
You are the one that asked the question regarding more work for same pay, correct?

Yes, I was asking the poster who attacked the public sector workers if this had ever happened to him.

I hoped he would see that to have your pay cut is a big deal.

Personally, my pay has not been cut, but many times the state or school board has had hiring freezes, which means that workers who leave aren't replaced...and the workers who are left have to take up the slack.

I didn't attack public sector workers. I happen to be a public sector worker, and am married to a public sector worker.

Both of us have had to take either a pay freeze, or pay cut. The coffer is drained.

It is simple.

Walker saved their jobs. Had his hand been forced, he would have had to lay people off. As it turned out, that didn't happen.


People seem to believe that the feds and states actually produce money. They don't. It is generated by someone else, and merely confiscated. What has been going on for decades is not sustainable. Changes have to occur. There is no way around it.

If Walker is recalled, so be it. The state can go back to placating the unions, and dig a bigger hole.

I think that is unfortunate for the taxpayers in that state, but if that is what they allow by electing a Democrat back in, there is nothing I can do about it.

 

[Provocateur]

Do the private employees work less hard?

Is this a serious question? Of course not. Their uniions make sure they don't have to. Get it? Work less for more of other people's money. I'd say that's a great deal if I didn't actually have a shred of integrity.

It was a serious question to a liberal, as they seem to have a position that only people that either work in the public sector or belong to a large union constitute a "working man".

I don't get the disconnection.

 

[MeBelle]

Uh, we're discussing the Wisconsin recall. Does it have to happen to me personally before I'm allowed to say anything?

Yes we are discussing the WI recall.
You are the one that asked the question regarding more work for same pay, correct?

Yes, I was asking the poster who attacked the public sector workers if this had ever happened to him.

I hoped he would see that to have your pay cut is a big deal.

Personally, my pay has not been cut, but many times the state or school board has had hiring freezes, which means that workers who leave aren't replaced...and the workers who are left have to take up the slack.

Ahhh, clarity.
Here is the main issue from my unique POV working in both private and public sector, simultaneously.
Public sectors are funded with taxpayer dollars. I think we can agree on this.
Private sector is NOT funded with taxpayer dollars. I think we can agree on this.

So, what I see in the school district is, larger class sizes (^ to 30+students in K-5), transportation, which parents had to purchase bus passes, cut (makes zero sense to me) , one week cut from actual teaching students, yet there are no pay cuts or staff contributions to their pensions or health insurance.
So, as a taxpayer, a parent and an employee, I find all of this unacceptable and unsustainable! The money 'saved' goes to fund, unfunded liabilites, ie pensions.
What happened to the CHILDREN getting an education?

 

[Dr.House]

So very shallow, this line of 'prove a negative'. It is glaringly obvious that you don't have an argument. Your debating attempts are feeble. And feeble is generous. Try harder.

No one has solid evidence that Walker do not use the stimulus normally. Until someone can argue otherwise, shallow is with you and your buds.

What part of there was no more stimulus money available for Walker to use in his budget don't you understand?

His biennial budget started in July 2011.



*throws hands up in the air and moves to the flame zone where even the FFFF is more rational than this line of "debate"*

Forget it... You're trying to have an intelligent discussion with an unarmed opponent...

Next move for Jokey is to claim he owns you and has bested you in this debate...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have far more in common with communists, bigreb, than you do with American political precepts. You oppose electoral, democratic process. Yet you tell us you are for pure American principles. You are one of the biggest liars on the board. You are in a class with CrusaderFrank and Dr. House.

You have far more in common with communists, bigreb, than you do with American political precepts. You oppose electoral, democratic process.

And what is this recall doing jake the communist? it's wanting to change the political process over rule the vote of the majority. So if you support it you are supporting the communist way.

You are one of the biggest liars on the board.

You are a lying son of a *****

You are in a class with CrusaderFrank and Dr. House.

Thank you I am in good company. unlike you you are in a class with truth matters rdean flayo mrshamnman.

 

[MarcATL]

As for my "claim" that teachers in Wisconsin have lavish pay and benefit packages? If you took the time to read you own cite from FactCheck you'd see that the average salary and benefits for teachers in Milwaukee was $100,000. I think that fits the definition of "lavish"...don't you?

What's fair compensation for a school teacher? How much should the persons that are largely responsible for educating our kids, the future of this country make? Should there be a cap? Should there be a minimum? You tell me.

My point, Marc...is that if you're trying to make the point that teachers DON'T have lavish pay and benefit packages then it's hard to do so when they are averaging $100,000 a year for a job with that much time off. I'm sorry but that's a whole of money for the hours worked.

You still haven't answered the question.

I can only surmise that you find 100,000 bucks per year for a teacher to be lavish.

With that said, are you saying that that is what all, the majority, some, or one-too-many WI public school teachers are making?

Be clear.

 

[MarcATL]

As for my "claim" that teachers in Wisconsin have lavish pay and benefit packages? If you took the time to read you own cite from FactCheck you'd see that the average salary and benefits for teachers in Milwaukee was $100,000. I think that fits the definition of "lavish"...don't you?

What's fair compensation for a school teacher? How much should the persons that are largely responsible for educating our kids, the future of this country make? Should there be a cap? Should there be a minimum? You tell me.

typical emotionally charged , intellectually deprived, brain dead Liberal talking point..........tissue?

A question is a talking point? Interesting.

BTW, can you pin-point which part is emotionally charged? Thanks.

What I see here is a RW reactionary knee-jerk response to a common-sense question that leads you to question your predetermined beliefs...aka your talking points.

You can do better than that. Or maybe not.

*shrugs*

 

[MarcATL]

To give Scottie Walker his walking papers.

Out of a total of 94% of the 540,000 needed. Their internal goal is 740,000 or thereabouts.

It's a wrap folks...Scottie's TOAST!!!



Source: The Wisconsin Democratic Party

Scott Walker Recall Effort Collected 507,000 Signatures in a Month | Mother Jones

So the minority is trying to over rule the majority? I thought liberals were pro democracy, I guess not.

No...what you're talking about is the 1% who has sway and control over the 99%.

Try again bub.

 

[Provocateur]

To give Scottie Walker his walking papers.

Out of a total of 94% of the 540,000 needed. Their internal goal is 740,000 or thereabouts.

It's a wrap folks...Scottie's TOAST!!!



Source: The Wisconsin Democratic Party

Scott Walker Recall Effort Collected 507,000 Signatures in a Month | Mother Jones

So the minority is trying to over rule the majority? I thought liberals were pro democracy, I guess not.

No...what you're talking about is the 1% who has sway and control over the 99%.

Try again bub.

Totally hopeless.



The Progressive Party thanks you for your steadfast diligence to their agenda.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To give Scottie Walker his walking papers.

Out of a total of 94% of the 540,000 needed. Their internal goal is 740,000 or thereabouts.

It's a wrap folks...Scottie's TOAST!!!



Source: The Wisconsin Democratic Party

Scott Walker Recall Effort Collected 507,000 Signatures in a Month | Mother Jones

So the minority is trying to over rule the majority? I thought liberals were pro democracy, I guess not.

No...what you're talking about is the 1% who has sway and control over the 99%.

Try again bub.

Maybe you should try again BUB the 1%er's are not solely based in the republican party a large portion are democrats you dumb ******* hack.

 

[Bern80]

What's fair compensation for a school teacher? How much should the persons that are largely responsible for educating our kids, the future of this country make? Should there be a cap? Should there be a minimum? You tell me.

My point, Marc...is that if you're trying to make the point that teachers DON'T have lavish pay and benefit packages then it's hard to do so when they are averaging $100,000 a year for a job with that much time off. I'm sorry but that's a whole of money for the hours worked.

You still haven't answered the question.

I can only surmise that you find 100,000 bucks per year for a teacher to be lavish.

With that said, are you saying that that is what all, the majority, some, or one-too-many WI public school teachers are making?

Be clear.

I would think the word 'average' would be pretty clear to everyone. I also think most would indeed consider 100k a year to be lavish when you consider that puts them in the top 15% or so of income earners, even more so considering the proveribial bang for the buck they are getting for the amount of time they work. In the real world most have to work 48-50 weeks of the year where teachers work maybe three quarters of that time for the same pay. So yeah, i don't really wanna hear how aweful teachers have it.

 

[Bern80]

Maybe you should try again BUB the 1%er's are not solely based in the republican party a large portion are democrats you dumb ******* hack.

Statsitically it's anyone making more the about 350k a year.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe you should try again BUB the 1%er's are not solely based in the republican party a large portion are democrats you dumb ******* hack.

Statsitically it's anyone making more the about 350k a year.

Using opinions like marc's only republicans are 1%ers

 

[Bern80]

Maybe you should try again BUB the 1%er's are not solely based in the republican party a large portion are democrats you dumb ******* hack.

Statsitically it's anyone making more the about 350k a year.

Using opinions like marc's only republicans are 1%ers

I know at least one fairly prominent democrat that makes more than that.....and he's a minority to boot.

 

[Dragon]

I have only two things to say about this entire subject.

First -- this has been pointed out many times but most of you still don't seem to get it -- Walker's union-busting bill HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BALANCING THE WISCONSIN STATE BUDGET.

That's because the concessions to public employees' pay and benefits, which DID have something to do with balancing the state budget HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION. The ban on collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees would net the state treasure exactly ZERO in savings.

Therefore, it is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest to bring up the state's budget difficulties as a defense of Walker or his union-busting bill.

Second: when comparing the pay, benefits, and work load of public versus private employees, there are two different perspectives from which one can evaluate that.

One can ask, "Why do the public employees have it so good when private-sector employees work so much harder for so much less?"

Or, one can ask, "Why do private-sector employees have to work so much harder for so much less? Especially considering how strong business profits are these days, why don't they get higher wages?"

There is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer the first slant on the question over the second.

 

[Bern80]

I have only two things to say about this entire subject.

First -- this has been pointed out many times but most of you still don't seem to get it -- Walker's union-busting bill HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BALANCING THE WISCONSIN STATE BUDGET.

That's because the concessions to public employees' pay and benefits, which DID have something to do with balancing the state budget HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION. The ban on collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees would net the state treasure exactly ZERO in savings.

Therefore, it is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest to bring up the state's budget difficulties as a defense of Walker or his union-busting bill.

If public employees are prohibited from collective bargaining then presumably pay increases would return to being merit based as opposed to simply giving an entire group more money regardless of whether they've earned. Unions protect the lowest common denominators of the work force. Some people who actually give two hoots about doing their job and going above and beyond would probably warn pay increases. those that don't, won't. So while it doesn't change the numbers now, it is a very high likelihood of saving money over time.

Second: when comparing the pay, benefits, and work load of public versus private employees, there are two different perspectives from which one can evaluate that.

One can ask, "Why do the public employees have it so good when private-sector employees work so much harder for so much less?"

Or, one can ask, "Why do private-sector employees have to work so much harder for so much less? Especially considering how strong business profits are these days, why don't they get higher wages?"

There is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer the first slant on the question over the second.

Yes, actually there is. Unless of course you would like to contend that a free market is not the best way to determine something's true value. One group's pay is based on the value of their skills as determined by supply and demand and productivity in a free market. The other group (public employees) is not subject to those rules. The reason the first slant is the correct question is because the private sector provides the truest indicator of the real value of labor. The public sector is an INFLATED value of labor. Which is great if you can get it, but most people generally don't like paying more for something than it's actually worth, especially when they have no choice in having to pay the inflated price.

 

[Amelia]

I have only two things to say about this entire subject.

First -- this has been pointed out many times but most of you still don't seem to get it -- Walker's union-busting bill HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BALANCING THE WISCONSIN STATE BUDGET.

That's because the concessions to public employees' pay and benefits, which DID have something to do with balancing the state budget HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION. The ban on collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees would net the state treasure exactly ZERO in savings.

Therefore, it is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest to bring up the state's budget difficulties as a defense of Walker or his union-busting bill.

<snipped>

How fundamental the union restrictions were has been explained many times.

The process of fixing the $3.6 billion hole in the budget resulted in less money going to the municipalities and counties.

So the local leaders needed ways to cut costs. Restricting CB gave them the power to do that.



I don't expect you to accept that. Nevertheless, I stand by it. You probably have to live here to appreciate what a stranglehold public unions have had on local economies. Sometimes local gov'ts have allowed themselves to get into that position by making shortsighted decisions. Sometimes the unions have strongarmed the local gov'ts by doing illegal activities. The bottom line is that union demands have time and again led to higher costs and loss of services.

Walker gave the local governments the chance to make realistic changes to address all the needs of their communities, not just the unions.

 

[Dragon]

If public employees are prohibited from collective bargaining then presumably pay increases would return to being merit based as opposed to simply giving an entire group more money regardless of whether they've earned.

But the Wisconsin budget shortfall, like that of other states that have gotten into fiscal trouble, is only a short-term problem caused by the recession. While it does mandate some belt-tightening in order to get through this revenue dip, it does not mandate any long-term fixes, especially not one so draconian as the denial of basic labor rights to public employees.

The only sense in which Wisconsin even has a budget problem is short-term, and a short-term cut in pay and benefits had already been agreed to by the public employees' unions. As nothing else was broken, nothing else needed fixing in terms of the state budget.

Yes, actually there is. Unless of course you would like to contend that a free market is not the best way to determine something's true value.

So you contend that when workers bargain collectively, that means the labor market has ceased to be a free market? How ya figger?

 

[SAT2]

With all due respect, Sat? You can color them "safety orange" and it won't change the fact that those quotes of mine aren't slogans. I was referring to our Federal Government as bloated and inefficent long before there even WAS a Tea Party.

They sound like what Newt was saying in the 90s, when he sent out a memo telling his fellow Pubs to be sure to use words like despicable when describing your opponents. Slogans, rhetoric, cliches-call it what you will, it's the same TP fantasy that we can drastically cut government spending during a near depression, never raise taxes, and then solve any fiscal problems by raising the retirement age, privatizing more essential government functions, and ANOTHER ROUND OF TAX CUTS.

Talking about ways to make our government function better is not "gutting" government. I'm sorry but it's just NOT. The problem we face right now is everytime someone makes suggestions as to how to make government more fiscally responsible...ie cutting duplicated programs or getting rid of programs that haven't done what they were originally designed to do...they are immediately attacked for wanting to get rid of every social program and safety net out there. We NEED wholesale change because the system isn't working. We spend huge amounts of money that we now have to borrow from China and that money doesn't do for us what we spent it on in the first place. If it were your company or your own household doing this you'd stop it in a heartbeat because it's so obviously foolish...but because it's the Federal Government and they have the capabilities to just borrow or print money then it's something that get's ignored.

That is your view-but what we see from the GOP are attempts to turn Medicare and public education into voucher programs-and yes, that's gutting them. As in killing them and replacing them with something entirely different.

If it were my own household, I'd raise revenues. But when an increase back to the top marginal rate is proposed, the GOP starts screaming.

[ahhh, clarity.
Here is the main issue from my unique POV working in both private and public sector, simultaneously.
Public sectors are funded with taxpayer dollars. I think we can agree on this.
Private sector is NOT funded with taxpayer dollars. I think we can agree on this.

So, what I see in the school district is, larger class sizes (^ to 30+students in K-5), transportation, which parents had to purchase bus passes, cut (makes zero sense to me) , one week cut from actual teaching students, yet there are no pay cuts or staff contributions to their pensions or health insurance.
So, as a taxpayer, a parent and an employee, I find all of this unacceptable and unsustainable! The money 'saved' goes to fund, unfunded liabilites, ie pensions.
What happened to the CHILDREN getting an education?

I work every day to help the children get an education. That doesn't mean I shouldn't have a pension plan.

I agree, the "bus passes" seem ridiculous-a way of charging parents for something that ought to be a part of the package.

I have only two things to say about this entire subject.

First -- this has been pointed out many times but most of you still don't seem to get it -- Walker's union-busting bill HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH BALANCING THE WISCONSIN STATE BUDGET.

That's because the concessions to public employees' pay and benefits, which DID have something to do with balancing the state budget HAD ALREADY BEEN AGREED TO BY THE UNION. The ban on collective bargaining for Wisconsin public employees would net the state treasure exactly ZERO in savings.

Therefore, it is either ignorant or blatantly dishonest to bring up the state's budget difficulties as a defense of Walker or his union-busting bill.

Second: when comparing the pay, benefits, and work load of public versus private employees, there are two different perspectives from which one can evaluate that.

One can ask, "Why do the public employees have it so good when private-sector employees work so much harder for so much less?"

Or, one can ask, "Why do private-sector employees have to work so much harder for so much less? Especially considering how strong business profits are these days, why don't they get higher wages?"

There is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer the first slant on the question over the second.