Should Scott Walker Become creditable & give up his & the legislatures pensions?

[SentraSE-R]

Let's look at some other facts to offset the anti-union propaganda machine that's out to pit worker against worker while the divide between the richest Americans and the rest of us grows wider and wider.

The US Census Bureau found in 2010 that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968, the Associated Press reports. That's the widest gap on record, and the greatest disparity among western industrialized nations.

Corresponding with that is the fact that the USA is the only wealthy democratic nation with no strong union presence. Private sector unions now represent less than 7% of private sector workers, compared to 1/3 in 1960.

More pertinent facts - public employees made up only 17% of union members nationwide in 1973 and now make up half of all union members in the USA. Public sector unions now represent 36% of public sector workers.

These facts point to a completely different interpretation than the anti-union bashers come up with. The indisputable facts show that the good public sector pay that gripes the conservatives is indeed linked to the presence of strong unions. It also shows that the poor private sector pay that pales in comparison - the model the conservatives insist is best for us, is correspondingly linked to the absence of strong unions.

So now we know why the rich elements of the right wing are targeting government workers to destroy what is left of the labor movement. I wonder why the poor elements of the right wing can't see what their brethren are doing to them. Is it that difficult to put two and two together to see the obvious benefits of unions, and the economic disparity that our lack of strong unions has produced in the USA?

Twenty years ago, only 11% of American retirees could afford to live on their retirement incomes. The present is gloomier, with the average worker's IRA and 401(k) accounts set back a decade by the 2008 recession. The future is even gloomier, with fewer and fewer workers having pension plans, and most Americans having negative balance savings accounts. That's the future that the Scott Walkers, James', Marks, and Thymeclocks are trying to sell to us with their claims of union dominance and their cries to dismantle public sector unions. I'm not buying it. The facts don't support them.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

That's the widest gap on record, and the greatest disparity among western industrialized nations.

Why does this happen, though? I'm sure you'd like it to be a conspiracy of the evil plutocratic rich, but we don't all get what we want. Start with the obvious: wealth has a lower bound (zero), but no upper bound, so unless you have some mechanism redistributing new wealth as it's created, it's naturally going to take that distribution. It's just simple statistics.

Then think about wealth: is it a fixed quantity, so that the only way to get wealthy is to take from someone else? Or is it something that is created, so that when someone invents a microprocessor or cell phone network, or makes a Google or Facebook, and gets rich from it, they've created new wealth that didn't previously exist.

So there's why you have the greatest income disparity in the US: most of the inventions & innovations that create new wealth are created here. If you look at the Forbes list of the richest Americans, you'll find that the great majority of them became wealthy from the creation of something that didn't exist before they invented it.

Corresponding with that is the fact that the USA is the only wealthy democratic nation with no strong union presence. Private sector unions now represent less than 7% of private sector workers, compared to 1/3 in 1960.

And why? Because workers aren't that stupid. They could see that the union bosses were looting them to feather their own nests, and in the process killing the geese that laid the golden eggs by destroying American industry.

...public employees made up only 17% of union members nationwide in 1973 and now make up half of all union members in the USA. Public sector unions now represent 36% of public sector workers.

Because the union bosses could use their political clout to force public employees to belong to their unions, as a condition of employment.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by duane1

I think the poll is slanted drastically to the left just due to the bias in the possible responses. You are trying to win this poll, not get a reasoned response.

If you want to get true numbers about his credibility we need a wide range of responses and alternatives rather than the liberal insult of "he's too important".

Open and honest debate is the only way to work through any issues.

LoL, I made the pole this way after thinking what would Scott Walker do?

I also modeled it (albeit more blatantly) after the poles I have received for the last 2 years from different sources both political, research, fox and others including my workplace hiding behind an so-called anonymous poll agency. These polls ALWAYS have obvious agendas and are obviously trying to force specific answers. I have never had a poll that was truly neutral, they always try to force specific stances, and unless I placed 100 answers in the poll it is unlikely I would cover you anyway (in this case I didn't care, figured your statements in the forum would cover OTHER).

Pretending I posted the poll as it is, as something other than irritation with the lack of proper representation at the state and federal levels is foolish. And arguing with the poll answers is stupid, argue why Walker should or should not place the bill forth as stated, not why you don't like my poll (which has an obvious, apparent reason that is unnecessary to argue).

The simple truth is the bill in question is Biased, it was made by a man who was elected by outside funding and a man who stated the bill is for the specific purpose of breaking unions (those are his words). A man who is bought and paid for and cares little for anyone in the state besides those who directly paid for his election.

Anything anyone says here is not going to convince people one way or the other on Scott Walker. Nor would anything I say have that effect either.
But I should not need to argue the point (or anyone else)...

In fact his intents and purposes are stated, known and not negotiable (his words not mine) I don't see why there would be any argument about his purposes when he already said why.

I cannot support someone who wants to build a straw man to throw in other terrible legislation that has nothing to do with the main stated intent of the bill. The bill is actually very much like Thymeclocks wifebeater question, Name a law "Food for orphans" that includes legislation to dump sewage in the orphans wellwater.

If he wants to decrease the pay and benefits of government workers to help with an artificially created budget crisis that would be fine by me.

The trouble is this bill has little to do with that, its a pointed political attack against a specific group coupled with unrelated legislation that will take years to fully understand, encapsulating a variety of non-budget issues that will negatively effect most everyone.

If Walker wants me or anyone here to trust him as working for the common good he would move for the bill to be straightforward without the clutter and BS and it would apply to ALL government workers including himself and the legislature. (which it DOES NOT DO AT ALL) Telling me that because of a shade of gray that one worker is different than another or that he isn't in a union means absolutely nothing. Anyone who gets a government pension and government pay should take the same cuts.

He also would have to be willing to work with the other side, which has not happened and per him will never happen, he is going it alone.

The simple fact is he is doing exactly what he said he would do, overwhelmingly his tactics are not support by pollsters of the Wisconsin public, including many who elected him because they apparently didn't understand what he really stood for.

I do FULLY believe government workers should not be overpaid and their wages should follow the local average (aka mode) of wages in the private sector with caps. Sadly this bill has nothing to do with implementing that either. All the time Milwaukee has several $Million Plus government employees, they seem to get little attention. Nice

And If I do post a poll on a whim as an afterthought, do to frustration with something I will make sure I include the Wife beating portion so thymeclock is happy.

And logically to that question I would have to answer No. I cannot logically stop what never started. It would be like turning my car off when the motor wasn't running.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

LoL, I made the pole this way after thinking what would Scott Walker do?

Pretending I posted the poll as it is, as something other than irritation with the lack of proper representation at the state and federal levels is foolish. And arguing with the poll answers is stupid, argue why Walker should or should not place the bill forth as stated, not why you don't like my poll (which has an obvious, apparent reason that is unnecessary to argue).

Your poll is biased, and the reason you initiated it was to promote your bias. At least you admit it to some extent, and that is admirable.

The simple truth is the bill in question is Biased, it was made by a man who was elected by outside funding and a man who stated the bill is for the specific purpose of breaking unions (those are his words). A man who is bought and paid for and cares little for anyone in the state besides those who directly paid for his election.

Excuse me, but it was the populace of your state who elected Mr. Walker based upon the platform on which he ran. The people of your state of Wisconsin VOTED FOR IT. Governor Walker is a partisan politician, just as partisan as Democrat politicians are. Dollar bills don't line up on the sidewalk to vote! People do! That's called DEMOCRACY! (I can understand why those in the Democratic party would find this so galling - "when the shoe is on the other foot, it pinches"...)

Anything anyone says here is not going to convince people one way or the other on Scott Walker. Nor would anything I say have that effect either.
But I should not need to argue the point (or anyone else)...

Then why are we reading this long diatribe from you about how awful it is? And what was the purpose of your poll? "Pity party"? "Sour grapes"? "Sore losers"?

The simple fact is he is doing exactly what he said he would do, overwhelmingly his tactics are not support by pollsters of the Wisconsin public, including many who elected him because they apparently didn't understand what he really stood for.

This is the quintessential Leftist position: if they didn't vote for our party they must be STUPID. The Left thinks everyone is stupid, and the Right thinks everyone is lazy. 'Twas ever thus. But your side lost the election, and now there is a backlash. That's the nature of politics. Yes it's ugly, perhaps even irrational, but that's the way it goes. Get over it. Sore losers, indeed...

And If I do post a poll on a whim as an afterthought, do to frustration with something I will make sure I include the Wife beating portion so thymeclock is happy.

Don't bother. After your latest diatribe you made it clear why you posted the poll.

(BTW, "poles" are found in stadia and firehouses; "polls" are found in the realm of politics.)

[SentraSE-R]

I'm continually impressed with the impossible logic presented by this topic's conservatives. Faced with Scott Walker's public and private comments, you continue to insist his position still has validity, and accuse everyone else of bias.

Faced with the facts of decreasing union strength, you continue to insist unions are too strong. Faced with the largest recorded disparity between rich and poor, you continue to shill for the rich, against the interests of America. The emasculated non-union American worker's pitiful wages can't be remotely related to the increased power of the rich. No, you have to put out the blue smoke and mirrors to create some fictitious benefits that a larger elite class supposedly creates for the growing poor and shrinking middle classes.

Refuting facts with fiction. Wow!

[Frank Lee]

Au contraire, Mon frere!

Originally Posted by Jim-Bob

How about eliminating AFDC, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead?

Why- are they related?

Your theory also has a flaw in that it seems to treat children as chattle instead of as human beings.

How do you figure? I'm about quality of life i.e. availability of clean open spaces and abundant resources; if anyone is treating children as chattle it is those that are in it for the tax breaks, the numbers game, and/or the ego trip.

I do support public education to a REASONABLE extent, but I also support school choice initiatives that would allow parents to opt out of the public schools and credit them the money that they would have paid in taxes towards those schools towards private schools instead.

Duplicate services doesn't save any money. School choice initiatives don't lower my property tax bill.

Private schools tend to provide better educations at a lower per child cost than public ones do because of the lack of waste. If they could be used to induce competition then maybe we could cut public school costs as well.

Private schools don't have to take all applicants and I'm told that serving special needs kids devours a disproportionate share of the budget. Nice try though.

As for me, I have no children. I wish I did but it takes two to tango and I have yet to find a dance partner at 37 so it is unlikely I ever will.

Don't feel bad. It isn't all it's cracked up to be. I wish more people would get a hobby or a pet instead of reproducing; judging by the quality of parenting out there it would ultimately be more rewarding anyway.

I also would ask what you would do to someone who had a child and could not afford to pay for their education? Put the child to death? Throw the parents into forced labor camps? Force the mother to have an abortion against her will before the child was born? Deny the child an education and condemn them to a life of poverty and citizenship in a crime-ridden underclass as an adult?

Again with the ridiculousness. I'm tempted to not respond to such silliness but here goes: This is what safety nets are for. Society takes care of the truly needy. I see no need to pay breeders in McMansions with giant SUVs and 100 miles commutes to have kids. I see no need to pay anyone to have kids. But if they truly can't afford it I'm sure there are several existing programs that would activate to help. Perhaps a lack of breeder subsidies, though, would help reduce the numbers of people that reproduce for govt money?

Your solution is overly simplistic and lacks enough details to deal with the realities of how life plays out. Therefore my analysis was legitimate because you make broad, open ended statements instead of writing well-reasoned, detailed arguments.

Self-serving crap statement if I've ever seen one!

[mcrews]

Thymeclock, thank you for jumping in ahead of me.....save me typing

your points are spot on.

The 'pole' want to compare union jobs(teachers) with legistative jobs. THere is no comparision.
1.Teachers recieve benefits worth more than 70% of their salary.
2. The unions have agreed to the cuts so why is that in the 'pole'?
3. why is collective bargining on benefits a 'right'.
4. why are you greedy fat union pigs continuing to steal from the taxpayer.
5. federal employees don't have CB on benefits, why should you?

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Your poll is biased, and the reason you initiated it was to promote your bias. At least you admit it to some extent, and that is admirable.



Excuse me, but it was the populace of your state who elected Mr. Walker based upon the platform on which he ran. The people of your state of Wisconsin VOTED FOR IT. Governor Walker is a partisan politician, just as partisan as Democrat politicians are. Dollar bills don't line up on the sidewalk to vote! People do! That's called DEMOCRACY! (I can understand why those in the Democratic party would find this so galling - "when the shoe is on the other foot, it pinches"...)



Then why are we reading this long diatribe from you about how awful it is? And what was the purpose of your poll? "Pity party"? "Sour grapes"? "Sore losers"?



This is the quintessential Leftist position: if they didn't vote for our party they must be STUPID. The Left thinks everyone is stupid, and the Right thinks everyone is lazy. 'Twas ever thus. But your side lost the election, and now there is a backlash. That's the nature of politics. Yes it's ugly, perhaps even irrational, but that's the way it goes. Get over it. Sore losers, indeed...

********************************************

I am soooo sick of whiney losers. Seem to me that there were only so many republicans in wisconsin, given the leftist nature of the state.
So 'how oh how' did some slick repub win govner and a majority legislature????????????????

I know, he was so slick that ALLLLLLLL thes democrats fell for his message and voted for him!!!!!!!!!



must be alittle jedi magic

Even cheating didn't help........

***********************************************



Don't bother. After your latest diatribe you made it clear why you posted the poll.

(BTW, "poles" are found in stadia and firehouses; "polls" are found in the realm of politics.)

[SentraSE-R]

Back to the original topic, Gov. Scott Walker's goal is to destroy public employee unions, not to balance the Wisconsin budget. If he wanted to balance the budget, the low-hanging fruit is the fat salaries he and the untouchable legislature receive. It's the inflated salaries and pensions that untouchable firemen and policemen make. So whose salaries does he target? The <$56,000 salaries that teachers make. Once again, we're seeing an example of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, and mean-spirited conservative thinking.

[Frank Lee]

As far as where the money goes in schools... school employee's salaries are all online in my state... I see where most of the teachers at my alma mater are making about $35,000/year. I agree, many (in other districts) are making more, and many of those making more aren't worth it, but my impression is that schools are far, far more top heavy with administration a.k.a. pencil pushers than they were when I went to school (back in the day there was a principal, super, secretary, custodians, cooks, bus drivers, teachers, and damn little else). Also back in the day, the principal and super didn't fancy themselves to be rock stars and so weren't drawing six-figure salaries and school-provided new Cadillacs. And then there's the facilities and tech-gadget expenditures... THAT is where the money goes.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

Back to the original topic, Gov. Scott Walker's goal is to destroy public employee unions, not to balance the Wisconsin budget. .

Balance the budget by eleminating collective bargining for benefits. period. The union has already agreed to the cuts in pay. Which, lucky for them, arent going ot be back to 2008 or 2009 when the rest of us got uor pay cuts from businesses trying to stay competative.
[/QUOTE]
If he wanted to balance the budget, the low-hanging fruit is the fat salaries he and the untouchable legislature receive.
[/QUOTE]

What is he making?100k ? 150K?
and the legistators 90K? 125K?
lets say there are 60 legislators and him. So 61 x 100,000 x 15% = $______[/QUOTE]

It's the inflated salaries and pensions that untouchable firemen and policemen make. So whose salaries does he target? The <$56,000 salaries
[/QUOTE]
upsssss......gotta stop the lie!!!! THe AVERAGE is $56,000
and their benefits cost 70% of that.
oh yeah....and are there more that 100 teachers? more than 1000? More than 10,000?[/QUOTE]


that teachers make. Once again, we're seeing an example of balancing the budget on the backs of the poor
[/QUOTE]
UUUPPPPPSSSSSSSS another lie!!!!
$56,000 is not poverty level. not even close. And 1/2 of the teachers make more!!!
AND you smug moronic lie teller, these teachers will retire with at least around $3k a month PLUS almost free health care and raises each yr.
The real poor will only get their social security $1800 max and have to pay uot an average of $500 in medical costs.
(and don't try to go here.....I work with over 65 yr olds for a living and it is DISGUSTING the retirement that teachers and state workers have in comparison to the rest of the population.)[/QUOTE]

, and mean-spirited conservative thinking.[/QUOTE]