Collective bargaining at itsfinest

[gekaap]

It was dealt with via the democratic voting process. The losers of that process (Democrats) chose to ignore that fact and leave the state rather than vote, thereby refusing to do their job. They were still paid for the 3 weeks "vacation" they took and the union supporters in WI (and others that were bussed in form other states) gave them a hero's welcome home. What other job in this country can you walk off of for 3 weeks and still keep your job?

Everything about which you're complaining here is a matter between WI state legislators, and their constituents. Unless you live in Wisconsin, what is your complaint? You admit that there were many people in Wisconsin who were welcoming of these legislators' actions. That is their prerogative.

 

[gekaap]

Corps are not paid by taxpayer dollars, public employee unions are.

No, public employee unions are paid with membership dues that come from the private funds of those members. It stops being taxpayer money the moment it's put into someone's paycheck, just like your money stops being your money the moment it is taxed away from you.

Let me ask you this, what happens when a corporation lobbies the local politicians for favorable tax breaks and credits. That's taxes that the corporation rightfully owed for the public benefit. Now, it's lost tax money that has to be made up for by the taxpayers directly. How is that any different then what you're complaining about?

 

[Bfgrn]

Some of these are indefensible.

Calling in sick and getting overtime?

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

Remember those teachers taking their students out of class to protest? Now I know why they like collective bargaining.

Due to a 1982 provision of their collective bargaining agreement, Milwaukee Public School teachers actually receive two pensions upon retirement instead of one. The contribution to the second pension is equal to 4.2% of a teacher’s salary, with the school district making 100% of the contribution, just like they do for the first pension. This extra benefit costs taxpayers more than $16 million per year.

I love this one.

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit. Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers."

CARPE DIEM: Collective Bargaining Abuse Examples in Wisconsin

Guess what people, teachers might not be the problem, but their union is.

We can all agree that if these things are true they are wrong. But there are some assumptions that I would challenge, particularly when someone insinuates that a lower-cost health care plan is equal to what it would replace.

But here are the facts; in the 52 years Wisconsin has had public unions, there is scant evidence of malfeasance. Public sector employees in Wisconsin make less than their private sector counterparts. And for jobs requiring a college degree, considerably less.

Republicans and the right have spread a bunch of lies, and you empty vessels absorb it like mindless sponges.

WEA Trust, the health care provider created by the teachers union in Wisconsin is a model of how a health care provider should be run. They offer many more benefits than their competitors at close to the same price. AND, if the competitors had to offer an identical plan, they couldn't match WEA's rates. WEA spends 93 cents out of every dollar on benefits. Private insurance companies are being forced to spend at least 80 cents by the Affordable Heath Care Act.

You say teachers are not the problem, but Walker is cutting their pay and there is no one on the right standing up for teachers, just parroting the talking points of a despot Governor who admitted he is union busting.

 

[ClosedCaption]

The unions asked for stuff then employers agreed..This isnt America!

 

[Big Fitz]

Corps are not paid by taxpayer dollars, public employee unions are.

No, public employee unions are paid with membership dues that come from the private funds of those members. It stops being taxpayer money the moment it's put into someone's paycheck, just like your money stops being your money the moment it is taxed away from you.

Let me ask you this, what happens when a corporation lobbies the local politicians for favorable tax breaks and credits. That's taxes that the corporation rightfully owed for the public benefit. Now, it's lost tax money that has to be made up for by the taxpayers directly. How is that any different then what you're complaining about?

No, public employee unions are paid with membership dues that come from the private funds of those members. It stops being taxpayer money the moment it's put into someone's paycheck, just like your money stops being your money the moment it is taxed away from you.

Oh we're going to try this bullshit again?

Wrong. A public sector employee has his union dues deducted from his paycheck. It is never his money. It is gone before he even receives it and he has no say in it.

Secondly, the money he is paid IS taxpayer dollars. Why? Because the government produces NO WEALTH. It must tax the private sector and individuals to pay for the services it offers. There is not one SINGLE PROFITABLE sector in government. It all requires taxation. Fees are taxation too you know.

Therefore, you can try to play semantic games all you want. Without taxpayers paying for government, which is done by force, you would have no pay for government employees. Ergo it's taxpayers money.

Game set match.

 

[Big Fitz]

Let me ask you this, what happens when a corporation lobbies the local politicians for favorable tax breaks and credits. That's taxes that the corporation rightfully owed for the public benefit. Now, it's lost tax money that has to be made up for by the taxpayers directly. How is that any different then what you're complaining about?

1. A corporation earns money through selling goods and services from voluntary participants in the trade. That money is theirs. The government then comes in and TAKES some of that money, which increases a business's costs that must be made up somehow, most often by passing the cost on to the consumer.

2. Business should not be subsidized nor punitively taxed. Government should not use tax law for redistribution of wealth and interference in the market on the behalf of any one company or industry over another or the consumer.

3. Why does this tax money need to be made up? Government overspending their budget. What's the first solution? Cut spending. Unless it's an enumerated power, it should not be done.

4. All wealth is not government's money by default. You seem to forget that. Not to mention don't seem to understand that the government's job is to protect the citizen's rights from foreign and domestic threats and then let them live their lives to the best of their abilities.

 

[gekaap]

Cries begging for Utopia do not make meaningful arguments.

 

[drsmith1072]

Some of these are indefensible.

Calling in sick and getting overtime?

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

Remember those teachers taking their students out of class to protest? Now I know why they like collective bargaining.

So how often is this actually done and what percentage of public workers that walker is stripping of their collective bargaining rights does it apply to?? Furthermore how does a correctional officer exploiting the system have anything to do with teachers??

BTW, how can you qualify for overtime if you only work 8 hours?? Fuzzy math?? My guess is that the officer works 32 hours exploits a loophole that does need to be addressed and takes sick leave for 8 hours and then works an additional 8 at the overtime rate. Funny how your link claims he only works 8 hours. LOL

Due to a 1982 provision of their collective bargaining agreement, Milwaukee Public School teachers actually receive two pensions upon retirement instead of one. The contribution to the second pension is equal to 4.2% of a teacher’s salary, with the school district making 100% of the contribution, just like they do for the first pension. This extra benefit costs taxpayers more than $16 million per year.

I love this one.

uh you do realize that the numbers now add up to 104.2% don't you?? How can teachers contribute 4.2% and the school district pay 100%. More of that fuzzy math? I am beginning to doubt the veractiy of the content from your link. Funny how the blog fails to offer anything of substance to back up it's claims and yet you jump at the chance to swallow what it is feeding you without question.

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit. Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers."

CARPE DIEM: Collective Bargaining Abuse Examples in Wisconsin
Guess what people, teachers might not be the problem, but their union is.

Yeah that sucks but it's good that seniority counts for something in this world. BTW was her lay off directly caused by the hc plan and if so can you show proof of that link? Or was it part of the overall budget shortfall that every state is running into because of the economy??


BTW come to find out that your blog is parroting walker's talking points.

Media Room

LOL Good job. quantum want a cracker?

 

[Big Fitz]

Cries begging for Utopia do not make meaningful arguments.

And the basis for all liberal/socialist/collectivist thought is what again?

That's right, creating an Utopia.

 

[Bfgrn]

Cries begging for Utopia do not make meaningful arguments.

And the basis for all liberal/socialist/collectivist thought is what again?

That's right, creating an Utopia.

What entity that would best address the needs of the people did our founding fathers create?

 

[Big Fitz]

Cries begging for Utopia do not make meaningful arguments.

And the basis for all liberal/socialist/collectivist thought is what again?

That's right, creating an Utopia.

What entity that would best address the needs of the people did our founding fathers create?

I'm sorry. My Libberish to sanity interpreter's on lunch. Could you try and make sense one more time?

 

[drsmith1072]

You know, I have no problem with any of this, as far as the workers go. If the employer has agreed to such terms, then that's on the employer, plain and simple. If I sit down at the table with you and work out a business deal that ends up being foolish for me, then that is my fault for being foolish in my business deals. Same thing applies.

You have no problem with the fact that your community cannot afford to pay for basic services because some idiot in the past gave unions a sweetheart deal? My advice to you is not to expect anyone to fill potholes around you house because you think it is more important to pay a teacher two pensions than fill holes.

That is why you renegotiate the deal. Unions were willing to compromise walker was not. If you have a mole on your foot that you want to remove you don't amputate the leg.

According to walker's own website he sites a press release with no link and your source is parroting walker's talking points and I cannot find an original copy of the press release so can you prove your claim that they get two pensions??

 

[drsmith1072]

You mean the unions asked employers for something and they agreed to it. Dam those Union bastards asking for stuff then getting it.

I keep asking repubs name ONE entity that is free of waste, fraud and or abuse. Once that entity is identified then lets put that thing in charge of government and unions. Just need one name

Yeah, it's wrong to engage in class warfare against the rich but to engage in it within the middle class is ok. LOL Those public sector workers have something they don't so they wish to take it from them through any means necessary.

 

[Bfgrn]

And the basis for all liberal/socialist/collectivist thought is what again?

That's right, creating an Utopia.

What entity that would best address the needs of the people did our founding fathers create?

I'm sorry. My Libberish to sanity interpreter's on lunch. Could you try and make sense one more time?

Did our founding fathers create a corporation to best address the needs of the people?

I will give you a clue... G_V_ _ _ _ _ _T

 

[thereisnospoon]

Those are terrible policies.

That isn't the fault of collective bargaining though.

That is the fault of bad bargaining on the part of managment.

Yes. Management. Politicians elected to represent the public. The public is NOT being represented at the negotiating table. Up until now there has been no incentive for politicians to negotiate, keeping in mind the taxpayers. That is coming to an end.
Again, there are no similarities between private sector and public sector negotiations.
When one says' Don't blame the workers, blame the politicians", they are missing the most important point of this issue. That is the fact that the people responsible for paying the bills have no say in the process.

 

[Big Fitz]

What entity that would best address the needs of the people did our founding fathers create?

I'm sorry. My Libberish to sanity interpreter's on lunch. Could you try and make sense one more time?

Did our founding fathers create a corporation to best address the needs of the people?

I will give you a clue... G_V_ _ _ _ _ _T

Ahhhhh the assumption is that Government is a corporation now? Well Seig heil Mr. Mussolini! Corporatism at it's best.

Proves once and for all you haven't the slightest clue what liberty, rights, government or business is about.

The founders created a government that was beholden to the people to protect their God given rights from those who would seek to take them. Unfortunately, men like yourself of evil intent became part of the process and have since turned this system against itself for their own personal profit creating the worst of both worlds: Collectivism for everyone while preserving liberty for themselves.

You must restore ethics to government, and make it an unsavory place for those in privilege by power of the mob or by the dollar. Government's job is not to take care of our wants and desires. Nor is it to monitor and control daily life. It is to protect us and be arbiter in our disputes. It's goal was to be the most fair method in which to allow us to live together even when we disagree. It has been one of the most successful systems in the world for that... till the corrupt gained control and decided that the old ways where people are to be ruled and subjects, not citizens should be returned.

But I'm so happy that you, tardtard, have proven you get none of this.

 

[Bfgrn]

Those are terrible policies.

That isn't the fault of collective bargaining though.

That is the fault of bad bargaining on the part of managment.

Yes. Management. Politicians elected to represent the public. The public is NOT being represented at the negotiating table. Up until now there has been no incentive for politicians to negotiate, keeping in mind the taxpayers. That is coming to an end.
Again, there are no similarities between private sector and public sector negotiations.
When one says' Don't blame the workers, blame the politicians", they are missing the most important point of this issue. That is the fact that the people responsible for paying the bills have no say in the process.

Empty propaganda. For 52 years the State of Wisconsin has collectively bargained with public unions. The results:

Are Public Employees Overpaid?

Walker has said that the labor changes are necessary because Wisconsin’s local and state employees haven’t made the same sacrifices during the Great Recession as private sector workers.

Walker glossed over the fact that state employees had eight unpaid furlough days in 2009 and 2010, which saved the state $121 million, and their wages have been flat for years.

He also forgot to mention that when he was Milwaukee County executive, members of the largest county employee union took 26 unpaid furlough days in 2010, or one unpaid day off for every two-week pay period—a 10% pay cut. They’ll have 26 unpaid days off this year, too, as a result of Walker’s final county budget. (The employees at the Shepherd Express, a private sector company, did not have any wage decreases or forced furlough days.)

So is Walker correct when he says that public employees are making more than their counterparts in the private sector?

The short answer is no, according to a new study by the national nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that Wisconsin’s state and local employees earn 4.8% less per hour in total compensation than their peers in the private sector. That number jumps to 25% for college-educated employees. EPI found that, on average, Wisconsin’s public employees with a bachelor’s degree earn $61,668 in total compensation; their peers working for private employers earn $82,134 in wages and benefits.

And although Gov. Scott Walker is earning $144,423 as a public sector employee with “some college” education, his pay package is not typical. Public sector employees who attended college but did not earn a diploma earn an average $46,707 in wages and benefits, while those in the private sector earn 7% more, or $50,324, EPI found.

 

[thereisnospoon]

here's the problem. The people representing the voters are not impartial.

Then it is the responsibility of the voters, isn't it? They're the ones who elected people who would not represent their interests. That is the voters fault, and that decision negates any complaint they can have on the matter.

They are lobbied by unions and then receive contributions to their re-election campaigns.

What's the difference between a union lobbying state politicians for good deals for government employees, and a company lobbying local politicians for good deals (tax breaks, etc.) for itself? It happens all the time, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.



Untrue. The taxpayers are represented by government officials, either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. But just a moment ago you admitted that the taxpayers tend to make poor decisions by electing people who do not represent their best interests. Honestly, that's just too bad. That is a decision that the taxpayers have made, and one they have to deal with.



Why is it a problem that the workers have the advantage? I'm not really concerned with who has the advantage. I'm more concerned with the fact that the line of reasoning that keeps being used to complain about these unions is insufficient. There is no reason why the rights of government employees should be trampled on, just because the voters have made poor decisions. The responsibility is on the voters.



Then the taxpayers, the people who voted in politicians who made bad business deals with their money, are going to have to deal with that. There are consequences for your actions, and if the taxpayers suffer because they elected people who did not manage finances well, then that is for the taxpayers to suffer.



This sounds like the argument from jealousy. It's "not right" for him to have so much when I have so little.



Public workers already pay up. They are taxpayers just like anyone else.



You sound like an awfully slanted left winger. Who are you to say what people should be paid?

Just because a business deal is signed, does not mean it is set in stone.

What!?! Yes it does. The deal is made, it must be honored. Refusing to honor it makes you a snake.

The benefits and pensions are no longer sustainable. There is NO MORE MONEY.

I guess you should have thought of that when you voted.

Then it is the responsibility of the voters, isn't it? They're the ones who elected people who would not represent their interests. That is the voters fault, and that decision negates any complaint they can have on the matter.
You are ignoring the fatcd that public sector unions work with the existing political power structure t insure THEIR candidates are elected. Unions contirbute heavily to these candidates AND the members of the unions( as well as their family members) vote in lockstep for these people.

What's the difference between a union lobbying state politicians for good deals for government employees, and a company lobbying local politicians for good deals (tax breaks, etc.) for itself? It happens all the time, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Private companies bring jobs which PRODUCE revenue for the respective state in which the business decides to locate. Public sector worek produces nothing. Public sector labor whihc does provide essential services, is straight cost. The idea that increasing public employment adds to the economy is part of the Keynesian economic theory which states growth is achieved through ANY type of employment. That theory has never held true.
Time and again economiesd grow only if the private sector is healthy.
On the other hand unions representing public workers simply use their political power to make gains for their members. It is a selfish system.



Untrue. The taxpayers are represented by government officials, either elected by the people or appointed by elected officials. But just a moment ago you admitted that the taxpayers tend to make poor decisions by electing people who do not represent their best interests. Honestly, that's just too bad. That is a decision that the taxpayers have made, and one they have to deal with.
I never said that. Polticians will say and do what ever is necessary to be elected and then keep their postions. For decades , in the state of NJ those runiing for office have had to kowtow to the unions because the power they wield. When the available candidates have virtually the same platform the voters choices are limted.
Because the eyes of taxpayers have been opened, they are thinking outside the box. They have chosen another path. This has incensed those who support the status quo. I imagine anyone who supports the continued free flow of tax dollars to pay high wages and gold plated benefits to public employees are part of the problem.



Why is it a problem that the workers have the advantage? I'm not really concerned with who has the advantage. I'm more concerned with the fact that the line of reasoning that keeps being used to complain about these unions is insufficient. There is no reason why the rights of government employees should be trampled on, just because the voters have made poor decisions. The responsibility is on the voters.
Not workers. Public employees having a huge advantage over those they serve. THAT is the difference. No one is tram0pling on anything. We're simply trying to rein in cost to the taxpayers. Up until now, unionized public emoployees have existed in a protected world of high wages, expensive benefits and virtual 100% job security. WHile the private sector plays by real world rules where workers must compete wiht each other for jobs, pay benefits and security. All this while the public sector remains insulated and the costs to those paying up keep rising and governments going farther into debt.



Then the taxpayers, the people who voted in politicians who made bad business deals with their money, are going to have to deal with that. There are consequences for your actions, and if the taxpayers suffer because they elected people who did not manage finances well, then that is for the taxpayers to suffer.
No, The system MUST change so that people can afford to pay their taxes and keep their homes. It is the system that is broken. And it is the ones paying so the system can exist who are broke.



This sounds like the argument from jealousy. It's "not right" for him to have so much when I have so little. You can spin this anyway you wish. The fact is the taxpayers have had enough of a system that drives up costs with ZERO return on investment



Public workers already pay up. They are taxpayers just like anyone else.
That's a bullshit analogy. It doesn't wash.
Besides, how is it a public worker "pays up" when his health insurance and pension costs are nearly all paid by the taxpayer? The average NJ public school teacher pays less than $750 annually toward their health insurance premium. Governor Christie is asking the teachers to pay an additonal 2%. Or about an additional $750 per year. The response from the union is typical. "Christie hates teachers"...REALLY?
The avergae NJ state employee working 25 years contribiutes roughly $120,000 to his pension and benefit fund during the length of his tenure. If that person lives to average life expectency of 80 yrs of age, his pension and benefit cost to the taxpayer will reach nearly $3million....That's absurd.



You sound like an awfully slanted left winger. Who are you to say what people should be paid? The rate of pay should be determined by the marketplace. Not some group of people who hold the puppet strings of polticians and demand, not negotiate, while the people paying the cost have no say in the matter.

Just because a business deal is signed, does not mean it is set in stone.

What!?! Yes it does. The deal is made, it must be honored. Refusing to honor it makes you a snake.
No it does not....If the XYZ company signs a pay deal to with the workers and the economy goes into the dumper, first thing XYZ does is lay off workers due to lesening need. If that doesn't work and business continues to suffer, the XYZ company can and will file bankruptcy to protect itself from creditors. At that point all contracts and agreements become null and void. The board is wiped clean and they start all over.
Now compare that to the public sector. This where the insidious nature or public unions angers the taxpayers. The economy suffers, jobs disappear from the private sector. Revenue streams to government slow. In the past, government would simply incrase taxes to pay their obligations. One being the union contracts with employees.
This time we have spiraled downward and the taxpayers are no longer available to bail out government. So the government has to go to the public workers and say :"look, we cannot continue to increase taxes to pay your benefit packages, you'll have to make concessions or face massive layoffs." Again, no contract is set in stone.

The benefits and pensions are no longer sustainable. There is NO MORE MONEY.

No more money in the form of tax increases.

Then it is the responsibility of the voters, isn't it? They're the ones who elected people who would not represent their interests. That is the voters fault, and that decision negates any complaint they can have on the matter.
That is correct. In the case of the voters in Wisconsin that is precisely what has occurred. The voters swept out those who supported the expensive unions. Regime change.

What's the difference between a union lobbying state politicians for good deals for government employees, and a company lobbying local politicians for good deals (tax breaks, etc.) for itself? It happens all the time, but I don't see anyone complaining about that.
Yo asked that question earlier. Answered in full.
Look, this is a done deal. You can whine and moan all you like. The facts are there for all to see. THERE IS NO MORE MONEY.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Those are terrible policies.

That isn't the fault of collective bargaining though.

That is the fault of bad bargaining on the part of managment.

Yes. Management. Politicians elected to represent the public. The public is NOT being represented at the negotiating table. Up until now there has been no incentive for politicians to negotiate, keeping in mind the taxpayers. That is coming to an end.
Again, there are no similarities between private sector and public sector negotiations.
When one says' Don't blame the workers, blame the politicians", they are missing the most important point of this issue. That is the fact that the people responsible for paying the bills have no say in the process.

Empty propaganda. For 52 years the State of Wisconsin has collectively bargained with public unions. The results:

Are Public Employees Overpaid?

Walker has said that the labor changes are necessary because Wisconsin’s local and state employees haven’t made the same sacrifices during the Great Recession as private sector workers.

Walker glossed over the fact that state employees had eight unpaid furlough days in 2009 and 2010, which saved the state $121 million, and their wages have been flat for years.

He also forgot to mention that when he was Milwaukee County executive, members of the largest county employee union took 26 unpaid furlough days in 2010, or one unpaid day off for every two-week pay period—a 10% pay cut. They’ll have 26 unpaid days off this year, too, as a result of Walker’s final county budget. (The employees at the Shepherd Express, a private sector company, did not have any wage decreases or forced furlough days.)

So is Walker correct when he says that public employees are making more than their counterparts in the private sector?

The short answer is no, according to a new study by the national nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute (EPI), which found that Wisconsin’s state and local employees earn 4.8% less per hour in total compensation than their peers in the private sector. That number jumps to 25% for college-educated employees. EPI found that, on average, Wisconsin’s public employees with a bachelor’s degree earn $61,668 in total compensation; their peers working for private employers earn $82,134 in wages and benefits.

And although Gov. Scott Walker is earning $144,423 as a public sector employee with “some college” education, his pay package is not typical. Public sector employees who attended college but did not earn a diploma earn an average $46,707 in wages and benefits, while those in the private sector earn 7% more, or $50,324, EPI found.

and still with all the days off, the state's taxpayers still are unable to afford the public workers.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm sorry. My Libberish to sanity interpreter's on lunch. Could you try and make sense one more time?

Did our founding fathers create a corporation to best address the needs of the people?

I will give you a clue... G_V_ _ _ _ _ _T

Ahhhhh the assumption is that Government is a corporation now? Well Seig heil Mr. Mussolini! Corporatism at it's best.

Proves once and for all you haven't the slightest clue what liberty, rights, government or business is about.

The founders created a government that was beholden to the people to protect their God given rights from those who would seek to take them. Unfortunately, men like yourself of evil intent became part of the process and have since turned this system against itself for their own personal profit creating the worst of both worlds: Collectivism for everyone while preserving liberty for themselves.

You must restore ethics to government, and make it an unsavory place for those in privilege by power of the mob or by the dollar. Government's job is not to take care of our wants and desires. Nor is it to monitor and control daily life. It is to protect us and be arbiter in our disputes. It's goal was to be the most fair method in which to allow us to live together even when we disagree. It has been one of the most successful systems in the world for that... till the corrupt gained control and decided that the old ways where people are to be ruled and subjects, not citizens should be returned.

But I'm so happy that you, tardtard, have proven you get none of this.

NO...try again...

The very best entity and vehicle our founders believed would best address the needs of the people is the government THEY created...it is their seminal achievement. Our founding fathers were not lovers of corporations and they treated corporations with suspicion equal to or greater than their suspicion of government. They HEAVILY regulated corporations and frequently pulled their charters if they did anything that brought harm to the people.

But what America has devolved into is a minority of liberals who understand our founders' intent, and a gaggle of right wing 'free marketeers' who believe the only malfeasance in our society is the very entity our founding fathers created! These same right wing ideologues now believe the nations panacea is to put complete trust and undying faith in the very entities (corporations) our founders despised. It was a corporate tax break to the British East India Company which threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses that enraged patriots enough to dress like Indians and dump tea in Boston harbor, even though rescinding that corporate tax break would likely make tea more expensive for the settlers.