Walkers Speech was very good, and very clear. Let the layoffs begin.

[Uncensored2008]

Arnie was a wolf in sheeps in clothing..........A lib trying to pose as a con.

Just look at his policies. They tell the tale.

Problem is, people like Abel Maldonado and even my own Jeff Miller aren't really any better.

Miller was Mayor of Corona and is now Assemblyman for Corona, Yorba Linda and Anaheim Hills. This is one of the most conservative, if not THE most conservative district in the state. Even so, Miller caved on taxes and on union demands.

 

[Polk]

And they can turn around and repeal the law after they retake the majority in 2012. So really, Walker is threatening to lay people off over a petty little game he wants to play.

If the Dems would come back to work, NO ONE would be laid off.

Without the vote, he has no choice.

Even the rebuttal to his speech tonight said he had no choice if a vote wasn't taken.

Just like how hostages would never be harmed if people just gave in to the hostage-taker's demands!

 

[Polk]

And they can turn around and repeal the law after they retake the majority in 2012. So really, Walker is threatening to lay people off over a petty little game he wants to play.

Funny, but you now sound just like Conservatives who opposed Obamacare.....

The bottom line is that the States are broke and they cannot continue with unsustainable programs- they cannot print money and bonds ultimately come due. Someone has to say NO MORE!!! Walker is that man- he has the courage to get it done and done it will be.

You shouldn't be upset with Walker, you should be upset with his predeccesor who left him with a gigantic hole.

Except that the line Walker is doubling down on won't save the state any money.

 

[Polk]

So in the last 20 posts, we've gone from a good discussion, to grammar and semantics, to gay slams.

That is the chronology of losing, right there!

EPIC THREAD!!!!

Now quick.....someone bring up Hitler and we can all move on.

I guess that's what happens when I decide to spend the night playing video games and hanging out with my friends instead of posting.

 

[Polk]

And they can turn around and repeal the law after they retake the majority in 2012. So really, Walker is threatening to lay people off over a petty little game he wants to play.

No, he's threatening to lay people off over a very real solution he thinks he's found. If he's right, then by election time in 2012, positive results will be on display, and there's no way in Hell that the Democrats will be retaking anything.

Please, explain how the elimination of collective bargaining will save the state one penny.

 

[Zander]

And they can turn around and repeal the law after they retake the majority in 2012. So really, Walker is threatening to lay people off over a petty little game he wants to play.

Funny, but you now sound just like Conservatives who opposed Obamacare.....

The bottom line is that the States are broke and they cannot continue with unsustainable programs- they cannot print money and bonds ultimately come due. Someone has to say NO MORE!!! Walker is that man- he has the courage to get it done and done it will be.

You shouldn't be upset with Walker, you should be upset with his predeccesor who left him with a gigantic hole.

Except that the line Walker is doubling down on won't save the state any money.

Prove it.

 

[Polk]

Funny, but you now sound just like Conservatives who opposed Obamacare.....

The bottom line is that the States are broke and they cannot continue with unsustainable programs- they cannot print money and bonds ultimately come due. Someone has to say NO MORE!!! Walker is that man- he has the courage to get it done and done it will be.

You shouldn't be upset with Walker, you should be upset with his predeccesor who left him with a gigantic hole.

Except that the line Walker is doubling down on won't save the state any money.

Prove it.

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

 

[Big Fitz]

They will be recalled.

And probably replaced with (R)s

Really? You really think that?

They've been gone for 12 days. At day 30, they are deemed to have abandoned their office, and are then eligible for recall.

I expect the Senate Majority to do whatever they have to do to get back to business....and guess who is the Senate Majority?

maybe someone can find them and provide them with a nice comfy car trunk to wait past 30 days forcing the recall?

Just sayin'

 

[Zander]

Except that the line Walker is doubling down on won't save the state any money.

Prove it.

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Except that the line Walker is doubling down on won't save the state any money.

Prove it.

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Simple. The unions would lose their political power to make or break the careers of elected officials.
Until now powerful unions and their lobbyists have been able to twist arms to get what they want for their members. Without that chip, the legislatures of these states can get control of the out of control perks that unionized public employees receive.
Not having to accept one increase in benefits after another will save money. And it brings public worker benefits more in line with the private sector.
Bottom line is public workers DO NOT deserve these perks nor should they ever have gotten them.

 

[Polk]

Prove it.

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

 

[Polk]

Prove it.

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Simple. The unions would lose their political power to make or break the careers of elected officials.
Until now powerful unions and their lobbyists have been able to twist arms to get what they want for their members. Without that chip, the legislatures of these states can get control of the out of control perks that unionized public employees receive.
Not having to accept one increase in benefits after another will save money. And it brings public worker benefits more in line with the private sector.
Bottom line is public workers DO NOT deserve these perks nor should they ever have gotten them.

That's a pretty weak argument for several reasons:

- If unions were so politically powerful, how do you explain the anti-union majority in the state legislature?
2. It assumes voters are duped into doing the bidding of unions, instead of making a choice you happen to disagree with, but which is perfectly valid option.

 

[Zander]

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

By your logic, it shouldn't matter to the Unions. They can't lose something they never really had.

Personally, I don't care if it saves money or not. I dislike Labor unions and anything that weakens them I applaud.

 

[Polk]

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

By your logic, it shouldn't matter to the Unions. They can't lose something they never really had.

Personally, I don't care if it saves money or not. I dislike Labor unions and anything that weakens them I applaud.

Fair enough, but that's a different argument than claiming it will somehow save money.

 

[Big Fitz]

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

Okay, so let's take that scenario, and do a little logic game with it.

- State tells union it will be cutting wages.
- Union says no.
- State refuses to budge.
- Union goes on strike.
- Strike causes undue hardship on State and non-union member citizens.
- Strike ends in either the Union giving in, or the state having to find somewhere else to cut that is even more painful, but has less special interest protection.
- Taxes increase or services in other areas decrease to cover the unfunded budget.

Now, without collective bargaining (as with FEDERAL Employees)

- State says they're cutting wages.
- Workers say screw that and start looking for other jobs that pay as well.
- New workers are hired to replace the old one who quit
- Nobody except those who quit without finding better jobs experiences any duress
- Taxes and spending stay down.

Pretty simple situation in my book. No collective bargaining allows the public sector jobs to go back to market supported levels as should have always been the case.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I think it's up to you to prove how will eliminating collective bargaining save money.

Simple. The unions would lose their political power to make or break the careers of elected officials.
Until now powerful unions and their lobbyists have been able to twist arms to get what they want for their members. Without that chip, the legislatures of these states can get control of the out of control perks that unionized public employees receive.
Not having to accept one increase in benefits after another will save money. And it brings public worker benefits more in line with the private sector.
Bottom line is public workers DO NOT deserve these perks nor should they ever have gotten them.

That's a pretty weak argument for several reasons:

- If unions were so politically powerful, how do you explain the anti-union majority in the state legislature?
2. It assumes voters are duped into doing the bidding of unions, instead of making a choice you happen to disagree with, but which is perfectly valid option.

Simple..The voters swept out those who were doing the union's bidding.
It's a simple process really. Voters tired of the way things are being done go to the polls and vote for those who best represent their views and expectations.
It is at that point the unions lost their influence over state government. Hence the reason why we have the current situation in Wisconsin.

 

[Polk]

Why? I never said it would or wouldn't. You seem to be convinced that is won't save any money, so go on, prove it. Or at least give a few reasons why it won't save any money.

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

Okay, so let's take that scenario, and do a little logic game with it.

- State tells union it will be cutting wages.
- Union says no.
- State refuses to budge.
- Union goes on strike.
- Strike causes undue hardship on State and non-union member citizens.
- Strike ends in either the Union giving in, or the state having to find somewhere else to cut that is even more painful, but has less special interest protection.
- Taxes increase or services in other areas decrease to cover the unfunded budget.

Now, without collective bargaining (as with FEDERAL Employees)

- State says they're cutting wages.
- Workers say screw that and start looking for other jobs that pay as well.
- New workers are hired to replace the old one who quit
- Nobody except those who quit without finding better jobs experiences any duress
- Taxes and spending stay down.

Pretty simple situation in my book. No collective bargaining allows the public sector jobs to go back to market supported levels as should have always been the case.

What is the "market supported level" in a case where a product is not sold? It's a meaningless measurement. When you say, "cut wages for state workers", what you're really saying is you want lower quality teachers in schools, less competent police, and less effective workers. We, as a society, could certainly go too far in the other direction. We don't need PhDs in molecular chemistry teaching little Billy's chemistry class. Like all other economic activity, it's about trade-offs.

 

[Polk]

Simple. The unions would lose their political power to make or break the careers of elected officials.
Until now powerful unions and their lobbyists have been able to twist arms to get what they want for their members. Without that chip, the legislatures of these states can get control of the out of control perks that unionized public employees receive.
Not having to accept one increase in benefits after another will save money. And it brings public worker benefits more in line with the private sector.
Bottom line is public workers DO NOT deserve these perks nor should they ever have gotten them.

That's a pretty weak argument for several reasons:

- If unions were so politically powerful, how do you explain the anti-union majority in the state legislature?
2. It assumes voters are duped into doing the bidding of unions, instead of making a choice you happen to disagree with, but which is perfectly valid option.

Simple..The voters swept out those who were doing the union's bidding.
It's a simple process really. Voters tired of the way things are being done go to the polls and vote for those who best represent their views and expectations.
It is at that point the unions lost their influence over state government. Hence the reason why we have the current situation in Wisconsin.

No, the reason we have the current situation in Wisconsin is because Walker thought he saw a chance to ice some of political opponents.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Because there is no reasonable basis for stating it will save money. The only possible argument you could make, that the state could refuse to raise their pay and benefits, it's something they can also do if the union exists. Getting rid of the union may make it easier on them, but the ultimate control of the purse belong with the state government.

Okay, so let's take that scenario, and do a little logic game with it.

- State tells union it will be cutting wages.
- Union says no.
- State refuses to budge.
- Union goes on strike.
- Strike causes undue hardship on State and non-union member citizens.
- Strike ends in either the Union giving in, or the state having to find somewhere else to cut that is even more painful, but has less special interest protection.
- Taxes increase or services in other areas decrease to cover the unfunded budget.

Now, without collective bargaining (as with FEDERAL Employees)

- State says they're cutting wages.
- Workers say screw that and start looking for other jobs that pay as well.
- New workers are hired to replace the old one who quit
- Nobody except those who quit without finding better jobs experiences any duress
- Taxes and spending stay down.

Pretty simple situation in my book. No collective bargaining allows the public sector jobs to go back to market supported levels as should have always been the case.

What is the "market supported level" in a case where a product is not sold? It's a meaningless measurement. When you say, "cut wages for state workers", what you're really saying is you want lower quality teachers in schools, less competent police, and less effective workers. We, as a society, could certainly go too far in the other direction. We don't need PhDs in molecular chemistry teaching little Billy's chemistry class. Like all other economic activity, it's about trade-offs.

Compare their wages to non-union professionals and start from there.
Add or subtract per the local cost of living.
Other ways to save taxpayer dollars would be to eliminate all "banking" of vacation and sick time. There is no one in the private sector that can carry over unlimited personal time off. This is a very costly perk.
Also, workers MUST be forced to contribute a significantly higher percentage of their pensions and benefits. The taxpayers can no longer afford this either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's a pretty weak argument for several reasons:

- If unions were so politically powerful, how do you explain the anti-union majority in the state legislature?
2. It assumes voters are duped into doing the bidding of unions, instead of making a choice you happen to disagree with, but which is perfectly valid option.

Simple..The voters swept out those who were doing the union's bidding.
It's a simple process really. Voters tired of the way things are being done go to the polls and vote for those who best represent their views and expectations.
It is at that point the unions lost their influence over state government. Hence the reason why we have the current situation in Wisconsin.

No, the reason we have the current situation in Wisconsin is because Walker thought he saw a chance to ice some of political opponents.

Oh..I get it. Unsustainable pension and benefit costs and ever rising tax rates have nothing to do with it?...so every state that has had GOP majority legislatures is just trying to slam political opponents?
Your logic is impeccable.....