The Wisconsin 'Poison Pill"

[Oddball]

 

[boedicca]

The pensions weren't gambled away - they were promised based upon fake returns, just like Madoff.

A proper pension scheme would not assume annual returns above 4%. In CA, the career pols assumed 8% in order to promise increased pension benefits in exchange for campaign donations.

 

[zzzz]

The Poor in the U.S. live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world.

And why is it that we have to pay so much more for medications than the rest of the world?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Poor in the U.S. live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world.

This is the essence of Conservatism. "It's worse in the Sudan, so shut up."

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Poor in the U.S. live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world.

And why is it that we have to pay so much more for medications than the rest of the world?

Because you aren't as good at buying off politicians as big pharma is.

Oddly, conservatives seem to take a masochistic pleasure in seeing their disposal income eaten up by overpriced pharmaceuticals...

...it's their way of making sacrifices to the God of Profit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Dick Morris Poll, to be published at least once a month, will use the traditional polling method of telephone calls to registered voters. On occasion, internet polls will be done of a carefully drawn random sample of likely voters – in order to avoid the bias of relying only on those participants with a political predisposition.

The initial poll is the first published poll of voters conducted within the state of Wisconsin and was completed on Monday, February 21, 2011 and Tuesday, February 22, 2011.

WISCONSIN POLL RESULTS

• By 74-18, they back making state employees pay more for their health insurance.
• By 79-16, they support asking state workers contribute more toward their pensions.
• By 54-34, Wisconsin voters support ending the automatic deduction of union dues from state paychecks and support making unions collect dues from each member.
• By 66-30, they back limiting state workers' pay increases to the rate of inflation unless voters approve a higher raise by a public referendum.
THE DICK MORRIS POLL ON WISCONSIN at DickMorris.com

I sympathize with the public sector workers when it involves collective bargaining...there is no reason to remove same, as it remains for elected public officials to agree or decline in negotiations...they have the final say, as these folks cannot strike.

But no one seems to notice a more important death potion for unions...item #3 above...
if this goes through, it will end public sector unions!

Why?

Human nature...I predict that workers will not voluntarily send in the the hundreds or thousands of dollars in union dues.

So, wadda ya think?

in a perfect world collective bargaing for public workers would be acceptable.
Because union bosses are in bed with politicians that support union causes, use a portion of union dues to fund democrat political campaigns and use their power to coerce elected officials to "play ball", public employees should be banned from collective bargaining. This should be the norm until public worker wages and benfits are brought into line with private sector wages and bennies.

 

[boedicca]

The Poor in the U.S. live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world.

This is the essence of Conservatism. "It's worse in the Sudan, so shut up."

Wow. Your lack of comparative economic knowledge is rather glaring.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yea someone's a thuggish vampire alright.

The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Stop it! This has nothing to do with anything.
This issue is two pronged. One , public empoloyee benefits have become unsustsainable.
Second, the wage disparity in favor of public employees has grown to almost 30%.
These are the complaints. These are the things that must end.
Introduction of all other issues is just spin from those who support the unions and the high taxes they require to fund their member's goodies.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yea someone's a thuggish vampire alright.

The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Non sequitur and irrelevant to the topic.

It's relevant overall to what the hell is going on in the Country.

You'll be the first to point to the economy and cry about how fucked we all are, yet the first to cry baby about taxes on the Rich.........while ignoring the fact that the Economy is propped up by the middle class spending money....and ignoring that the money..to spend in the first place....is leaving the middle class and being sucked upward.

If you think that's a good thing, I'd love to hear about it, but pardon if I never give a **** about taxes on the upper 2% being raised, because frankly, the more money they've sucked up the more influence they gotten to suck MORE up, and THAT'S a huge reason that this country is coming to a cliff.

YOU say it's relevant. However once again a union supporter (you) has introduced a straw man argument in an effort to delflect the debate away from the actual issue. Not gonna hapen. So you can stow your class envy whining.

 

[Leweman]

Yea someone's a thuggish vampire alright.

The share of total income going to the top 1 percent of earners, which stood at 8.9 percent in 1976, rose to 23.5 percent by 2007, but during the same period, the average inflation-adjusted hourly wage declined by more than 7 percent.

Stop it! This has nothing to do with anything.
This issue is two pronged. One , public empoloyee benefits have become unsustsainable.
Second, the wage disparity in favor of public employees has grown to almost 30%.
These are the complaints. These are the things that must end.
Introduction of all other issues is just spin from those who support the unions and the high taxes they require to fund their member's goodies.

They do make a good point. The more I see it the more its hard to justify why there is such a huge disparity in wealth in the country and it continues to grow. I wish it could be remedied. Government can't do it properly or fairly though.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It's actually all truth...you can look at income distributions in charts with date ranges all over the net if you felt like it.....but calling names and snubbing your nose at it makes everything go away into the back of the mind.

Yes yes, higher taxes on the rich are the reason they're not hiring.....nothing to do with the fact that their income is about 400X the average guy as opposed to 50 or so which used to be the average. It's all got nothing to do with each other. Y'all are probably right.

Non-sequitur.....
Look genius, this IS about the middle class. The middle class that has seen their property taxes increase 10 fold in the last 15 years so that funding for public sector wages and benefits could continue.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's actually all truth...you can look at income distributions in charts with date ranges all over the net if you felt like it.....but calling names and snubbing your nose at it makes everything go away into the back of the mind.

Yes yes, higher taxes on the rich are the reason they're not hiring.....nothing to do with the fact that their income is about 400X the average guy as opposed to 50 or so which used to be the average. It's all got nothing to do with each other. Y'all are probably right.

1. Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.

a. Journalists and academics alike endlessly repeat that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. What these discussions ignore is that people move with some frequency from category to category over time. Only 5 percent of Americans who were in the bottom quintile of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. Only 25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 (the top 1/100th of 1 percent of income earners) remained in that category in 2005.

b. Over half of the poor earning at or near the minimum wage are between the ages of 16 and 24. As Sowell wryly notes, “these individuals cannot remain from 16 to 24 years of age indefinitely, though that age category can of course continue indefinitely, providing many intellectuals with data to fit their preconceptions.”

c. Abstract talk about “inequities” in income distribution presupposes a social problem, where strictly speaking one may not exist at all.
An Independent Mind by Daniel J. Mahoney, City Journal 18 June 2010



2. Feb. 26, 2009 According to Michael Medved, the top 1%, that’s 1.65 million tax filers, earning $388,000 or more, earn 22% of the income but pay 40% of the taxes.

3. Here is a concept that you may want to consider: You can have equality or prosperity...but not both.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Poor in the U.S. live better than the middle class in most of the rest of the world.

This is the essence of Conservatism. "It's worse in the Sudan, so shut up."

Wow. Your lack of comparative economic knowledge is rather glaring.

Every economic policy conservatives believe in serves to widen the gap between Rich and Poor.

It is what you believe in. It is what you want.

When a rightwinger starts spouting off about how the poor in America shouldn't complain because they aren't the poorest poor in the world it always makes me recall when Rush Limbaugh once said that blacks in South Africa shouldn't complain about apartheid because they weren't the worst off blacks in Africa.

 

[boedicca]

B'loney. The economic policies I believe in reward productivity and do no reward being a parasite.

 

[NYcarbineer]

B'loney. The economic policies I believe in reward productivity and do no reward being a parasite.

That is not in conflict with what I said. You may wish label the less wealthy, the working class, the poor - anyone who benefits from any sort of means based assistance - as parasites,

but that does not change the fact that your philosophy entirely embraces the concept of making them poorer,

not only by taking away any help from the government they might get - from medicaid to food stamps to the progressive income tax -

but by also taking away any help they might get outside the government, such as using the power of the government to take away their right to bargain for better wages.

EVERY economic policy you support is designed to see that the gap between rich and poor is not in any way lessened by any amount by actions by the government.

 

[shintao]

B'loney. The economic policies I believe in reward productivity and do no reward being a parasite.

And what about the mentally ill?
And what about the once productive who are parasites?
And what about the disabled worker?
And what about the disabled veteran?
And what about the children that don't have a job yet?
And what about the deformed children who are bed ridden?
And what about the aged seniors?

How does all this fit into your economic policies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Dick Morris Poll, to be published at least once a month, will use the traditional polling method of telephone calls to registered voters. On occasion, internet polls will be done of a carefully drawn random sample of likely voters – in order to avoid the bias of relying only on those participants with a political predisposition.

The initial poll is the first published poll of voters conducted within the state of Wisconsin and was completed on Monday, February 21, 2011 and Tuesday, February 22, 2011.

WISCONSIN POLL RESULTS

• By 74-18, they back making state employees pay more for their health insurance.
• By 79-16, they support asking state workers contribute more toward their pensions.
• By 54-34, Wisconsin voters support ending the automatic deduction of union dues from state paychecks and support making unions collect dues from each member.
• By 66-30, they back limiting state workers' pay increases to the rate of inflation unless voters approve a higher raise by a public referendum.
THE DICK MORRIS POLL ON WISCONSIN at DickMorris.com

I sympathize with the public sector workers when it involves collective bargaining...there is no reason to remove same, as it remains for elected public officials to agree or decline in negotiations...they have the final say, as these folks cannot strike.

But no one seems to notice a more important death potion for unions...item #3 above...
if this goes through, it will end public sector unions!

Why?

Human nature...I predict that workers will not voluntarily send in the the hundreds or thousands of dollars in union dues.

So, wadda ya think?

I think they are not mentioning it because they do not want anyone to think about it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

B'loney. The economic policies I believe in reward productivity and do no reward being a parasite.

And what about the mentally ill?
And what about the once productive who are parasites?
And what about the disabled worker?
And what about the disabled veteran?
And what about the children that don't have a job yet?
And what about the deformed children who are bed ridden?
And what about the aged seniors?

How does all this fit into your economic policies?

It is unfortunate that people such as those you mentioned above suffer because so many who receive public assistance are gaming the system.
It is not the existence of public assistance that is objectionable. It is the criminal mismanagement and misappropriation of taxpayer resources.
Now, at the end of the day, what you posted above has absolutely ZERO to do with the thread.
Stay on point.