Breaking News: Liberal Wisconsin Judge issues temporary restraining order

[MamaMia]

...to block the new law voted into place by Wisconsin legislators. She says that the Republicans should have given more than two hours notice before they voted on it. :pop:

Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi blocks contentious Wisconsin union law

MADISON — A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order today blocking the state’s new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect, a measure that drew tens of thousands of protesters to the state Capitol and sent some Democrats fleeing to Illinois in an attempt to block a vote on it.

The judge’s order is a major setback for new Republican Gov. Scott Walker and puts the future of the law in question.


Dane County Judge Maryann Sumi issued the order, which was requested by that county’s Dist. Atty. Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat. Ozanne filed a lawsuit contending that a legislative committee that broke a stalemate that had kept the law in limbo for weeks met without the 24-hour notice required by Wisconsin’s open meetings law.


The Republican-controlled Legislature passed the measure and Walker signed it last week.


Secretary of State Doug La Follette planned to publish the law on March 25, but the judge’s order will prevent that from happening, at least for now.


Assistant Atty. Gen. Steven Means said the state will appeal the ruling, but he didn’t say when. Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said in a statement that the governor was confident the bill would become law in the near future.


“This legislation is still working through the legal process,” Werwie said.


A spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald declined to comment, citing the ongoing legal fight.


Democrats were hopeful the ruling would lead to the undoing of the law, which eliminated the power of unionized public sector employees to collectively bargain most parts of their contracts.


“I would hope the Republicans would take this as an opportunity to sit down with Democrats and negotiate a proposal we could all get behind,” said Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach, of the 14 senators who stayed in Illinois for three weeks in an attempt to stop the bill from passing.


The bill was part of Walker’s solution for plugging a $137 million state budget shortfall. A part of the measure would require state workers to increase their health insurance and pension contributions to save the state $30 million by July 1. Other parts of Walker’s original proposal to address the budget shortfall were removed before the bill passed last week. The Legislature planned to take those up later.

Lawmakers are not scheduled to be in session again until April 5.


People opposed to the law converged on the state Capitol over the past month with massive demonstrations that went on for more than three weeks.

[cantwait48]

"puts the future of the law in question."

doubtful, the pubs can just send it thru again, seems like a waste of time

[sooner_born_1960]

That makes no sense, unless the legislature was not in session. I'd think if the legislature was in session, anything could be voted on.

[C&CDean]

The only thing that shocks me about this is that the yainch doesn't have a hyphenated last name.

[MamaMia]

The Republicans contend that they were in 'Special Session' and that the law states they don't have to give any notice for a vote under those circumstances. They did give 2 hours, but say they were not legally required to do even that.

[Aldebaran]

Once again, our independent judiciary saves the day.

[MamaMia]

This is Judge Sumi, She looks kinda nutty.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/sumi.jpg

[C&CDean]

Bitch looks just like a red x to me.

[Aldebaran]

Wow, a woman authority figure. She must be an ice queen and pee standing up.

[Veritas]

Typically hideous liberal yainch.

[sooner_born_1960]

I hope she gets about 70% of what her real counterparts get.

[MamaMia]

She has a floating devil looking eyes. :eek:

[StoopTroup]

I'd like to see what's under those robes. :pop: :hot:

[C&CDean]

Oh. My. God. I googled her. That, my friends, is no female.

[Spring]

Oh. My. God. I googled her. That, my friends, is no female.

http://i667.photobucket.com/albums/vv35/doctadunk/austin.jpg

[StoopTroup]

I heard she owns a Can-Am Spyder.

http://www.spanishpeaksarts.org/2010_shows_events/clay_continuum_5/motorcycle.jpg

[sappstuf]

"puts the future of the law in question."

doubtful, the pubs can just send it thru again, seems like a waste of time

Why not? They have the votes to pass it just like before. She isn't saying anything was wrong with the bill, just they may have not done the right procedure. It's going to be funny to watch the Dem Fleebaggers run for the hills again when the Repubs bring it back up.

I hope they locked the Senate doors when the ruling came out so the Fleebaggers can't get a headstart...

[Ton Loc]

I wonder if that's how she introduces herself, "Hello,I'm liberal judge MaryAnn Sumi, here to throw down decisions on things that should have been handled by common sense.". I admit, it is a long introduction.

Of course, I don't see what the problem is, its not like she made a big judgment on the bill itself, just saying to do it right.

[C&CDean]

I wonder if that's how she introduces herself, "Hello,I'm liberal judge MaryAnn Sumi, here to throw down decisions on things that should have been handled by common sense.". I admit, it is a long introduction.

Of course, I don't see what the problem is, its not like she made a big judgment on the bill itself, just saying to do it right.

It's not a big deal in and of itself, but I always like seeing a stereotype fit.

[Spring]

It's not a big deal in and of itself, but I always like seeing a stereotype fit.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.

[C&CDean]

If the tenny fits, lace it up.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Why is it liberal women could scare a fly off of a gut wagon? They're all ugly as sin.

[MamaMia]

Why is it liberal women could scare a fly off of a gut wagon? They're all ugly as sin.Because there is no wholesomeness about them. Thats why.

[MamaMia]

I wonder if that's how she introduces herself, "Hello,I'm liberal judge MaryAnn Sumi, here to throw down decisions on things that should have been handled by common sense.". I admit, it is a long introduction.

Of course, I don't see what the problem is, its not like she made a big judgment on the bill itself, just saying to do it right.

Wasting time and money. Its the liberal way.

[OUMallen]

All these legal geniuses in this thread...

[cantwait48]

"Why not? They have the votes to pass it just like before. She isn't saying anything was wrong with the bill, just they may have not done the right procedure. It's going to be funny to watch the Dem Fleebaggers run for the hills again when the Repubs bring it back up.

I hope they locked the Senate doors when the ruling came out so the Fleebaggers can't get a headstart..."

that is what I mean, whole thing is a waste of time and money for some political bull crap bickering, all they have to do is pass it again

[Midtowner]

All these legal geniuses in this thread...

Let me sum up the legal analysis I've seen in this thread:

If a judge agrees with me, he's a fine jurist and a credit to the profession.

If a judge disagrees with me, he's a GODDAMN ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!ONE!!11!

[C&CDean]

All these legal geniuses in this thread...

Enlighten us, oh learned one...

[C&CDean]

If a judge agrees with me, he's a fine jurist and a credit to the profession.

If a judge disagrees with me, he's a GODDAMN ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!ONE!!11!

Well at least you said "he."

[MamaMia]

Let me sum up the legal analysis I've seen in this thread:

If a judge agrees with me, he's a fine jurist and a credit to the profession.

If a judge disagrees with me, he's a GODDAMN ACTIVIST JUDGE!!!ONE!!11!

Sexist pig!

[Spring]

"Why not? They have the votes to pass it just like before. She isn't saying anything was wrong with the bill, just they may have not done the right procedure. It's going to be funny to watch the Dem Fleebaggers run for the hills again when the Repubs bring it back up.

I hope they locked the Senate doors when the ruling came out so the Fleebaggers can't get a headstart..."

that is what I mean, whole thing is a waste of time and money for some political bull crap bickering, all they have to do is pass it again

She did not rule on the merits of the law, just that they did not follow proper procedures when they passed it. She is does exactly what she is supposed to do.

[Ton Loc]

Wasting time and money. Its the liberal way.

I think anymore its just The Way.

[Flagstaffsooner]

Now the severe DNA mutation 'judge' is going on vacation, how convenient.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_efe5ca04-4f2f-11e0-9aa7-001cc4c002e0.html



It appeared unlikely Tuesday that a new law aimed at curbingcollective bargaining rights for public employees will be derailedin court before it takes effect later this month.
Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi warned she likely won'tdecide whether to stop implementation of Gov. Scott Walker's lawwhen she hears testimony on a preliminary injunction on Friday. Andafter that hearing, Sumi said, she will be out of state on a familyvacation until March 28, three days after the expected publicationdate of the bill.
"You should not expect a decision on Friday," Sumi told lawyersfor Dane County , which brought the case, and state officials. "Ifyou need a decision before the secretary of state publishes (thebill), you can't expect one."
Sumi asked the state to file a response to the county's suit bythe end of the day Thursday.
Sumi also reminded the parties that either side could requestanother judge be assigned to hear the case.
Circuit Judge Amy Smith on Monday she recused herself from thecase, citing a conflict of interest.
The county filed the lawsuit on Friday, alleging that alegislative conference committee that made key changes to the billmet without proper notice under Wisconsin's Open Meetings Law. Italso questions whether the state Senate had a proper quorum toconsider the bill.
Smith on Friday declined to put a temporary stop to publicationof the bill by Secretary of State Doug La Follette.
La Follette, a Democrat, has said he planned to delaypublication of the bill until March 25 — the latest date allowableunder the law — to permit legal challenges to go forward

[MamaMia]

She did not rule on the merits of the law, just that they did not follow proper procedures when they passed it. She is does exactly what she is supposed to do.

Not if they were in special session.

[MamaMia]

Now the severe DNA mutation 'judge' is going on vacation, how convenient.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_efe5ca04-4f2f-11e0-9aa7-001cc4c002e0.html

The the republicans should get the case bumped up and have a republican judge can hear the case. This is a prefect example of why I always vote NO to keep any and all judges.

[Flagstaffsooner]

The the republicans should get the case bumped up and have a republican judge can hear the case. This is a prefect example of why I always vote NO to keep any and all judges.
They have Republican judges? Or are they like Oklahoma, with democrap judges with beat-off machines under their robes?:)

[Aldebaran]

*pssh* *pssh* *pssh* *pssh*


"Case Dismissssed!"


*pssssssssssssh.*



Most... awesome... courtroom... ever...

[MamaMia]

*pssh* *pssh* *pssh* *pssh*


"Case Dismissssed!"


*pssssssssssssh.*



Most... awesome... courtroom... ever...

Its hard to beat the OJ courtroom. :D

[hawaii 5-0]

Guess there's one judge up there that isn't on the Koch Brothers payroll.



5-0

[C&CDean]

He said "koch." Heh heh heh...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

SoonerTroup must have wined and dined her.

[Midtowner]

She did not rule on the merits of the law, just that they did not follow proper procedures when they passed it. She is does exactly what she is supposed to do.

Not even that. Just that there's a likelihood that the Plaintiff will prevail on the merits and that to not grant a TRO would result in irreparable harm.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It's a good thing we have all these fine folks to level fingers and demonize people. Because liberals are the debbil, right?

Why does it have to be about "liberals" and "conservatives"? Like party lines and political positions are hand in hand with sin and righteousness? Does that not strike you folks as odd?

Can we agree that a 90% pension with another retirement vehicle to essentially double up on that pension plus 100% healthcare coverage during employment is too much? Is excessive? I bet we could. Could we agree that the pension issues in Wisconsin are only 3-4% of the state budget shortfall? From what I've read, we should. Could we agree that collective bargaining as a process between employee and employer is actually a GOOD thing to establish reasonable, market driven wages? And that binding arbitration as an enforcement system is wholly based on the right of the employer to submit bargained options to the will of the people through a vote? And that withOUT collective bargaining and binding arbitration you don't solve A) the state's budget concerns or B) the pension issues? But to trump all of that, can we agree that in states such as Wisconsin the existence of employee unions has grown into a shade of its former self to become a self-sustaining monster instead of the defender of the working man's rights as is found in many other instances?

People, there's sense on BOTH sides of this fight. It absolutely kills me to hear folks carrying a "liberal" spear or the "conservative" shield as if they're marching to war like good little soldiers. There are reasonable arguments to be had from both. There are changes necessary from both. And somewhere in that middle ground away from the Limbaughs and Huffingtons is an island of sensibility. And there's just as many sharks to both sides of that island.

[My Opinion Matters]

It's a good thing we have all these fine folks to level fingers and demonize people. Because liberals are the debbil, right?

Why does it have to be about "liberals" and "conservatives"? Like party lines and political positions are hand in hand with sin and righteousness? Does that not strike you folks as odd?

Can we agree that a 90% pension with another retirement vehicle to essentially double up on that pension plus 100% healthcare coverage during employment is too much? Is excessive? I bet we could. Could we agree that the pension issues in Wisconsin are only 3-4% of the state budget shortfall? From what I've read, we should. Could we agree that collective bargaining as a process between employee and employer is actually a GOOD thing to establish reasonable, market driven wages? And that binding arbitration as an enforcement system is wholly based on the right of the employer to submit bargained options to the will of the people through a vote? And that withOUT collective bargaining and binding arbitration you don't solve A) the state's budget concerns or B) the pension issues? But to trump all of that, can we agree that in states such as Wisconsin the existence of employee unions has grown into a shade of its former self to become a self-sustaining monster instead of the defender of the working man's rights as is found in many other instances?

People, there's sense on BOTH sides of this fight. It absolutely kills me to hear folks carrying a "liberal" spear or the "conservative" shield as if they're marching to war like good little soldiers. There are reasonable arguments to be had from both. There are changes necessary from both. And somewhere in that middle ground away from the Limbaughs and Huffingtons is an island of sensibility. And there's just as many sharks to both sides of that island.

Welcome to the Internet. You must be new here.

[MamaMia]

Wisconsin needs Right to Work.

The liberals there have been saying that people gave their lives to establish the collective bargaining tool. Really?!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Yes. Really.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Guess there's one judge up there that isn't on the Koch Brothers payroll.



5-0Wholly mackerel, er ah, skunk. Ask and you shall receive...

[MamaMia]

Yes. Really.How so?

[AlboSooner]

It depends how ones looks at things:for some it's all about liberal judges using their power to stop conservative laws, and for some it's about conservative judges in Florida stopping liberal health care bills, and for me I like to think maybe there are legal issues that we need to look at without attaching labels.

[MamaMia]

It depends how ones looks at things:for some it's all about liberal judges using their power to stop conservative laws, and for some it's about conservative judges in Florida stopping liberal health care bills, and for me I like to think maybe there are legal issues that we need to look at without attaching labels.People should not be forced to have to pay for some service they don't want. States should be able to opt out of ObamaCare.

[AlboSooner]

People should not be forced to have to pay for some service they don't want. States should be able to opt out of ObamaCare.

I didn't say they should. My post did not take a position pro or against any bill, but merely stated that legality issues should be looked at without the usual labels.

ps: I can come up with many examples where we pay for things we don't want to pay for. For example many felt against using tax payer dollars to bail out the rich, but the people in power made us pay for it nonetheless.

[C&CDean]

I didn't say they should. My post did not take a position pro or against any bill, but merely stated that legality issues should be looked at without the usual labels.

ps: I can come up with many examples where we pay for things we don't want to pay for. For example many felt against using tax payer dollars to bail out the rich, but the people in power made us pay for it nonetheless.

Huh? We spend a HELL of a lot more taxpaying dollar baling out the poor than we do the rich. Even my dumb, inbred, toothless Okie *** knows that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Huh? We spend a HELL of a lot more taxpaying dollar baling out the poor than we do the rich. Even my dumb, inbred, toothless Okie *** knows that.You likee your taxes going to pay those union teachers of our young-uns? Here, teach us about gettin' even with THE MAN, and let's learn some Barry-O, Oh Oh Oh, songs.

[AlboSooner]

Huh? We spend a HELL of a lot more taxpaying dollar baling out the poor than we do the rich. Even my dumb, inbred, toothless Okie *** knows that.

You're proving my point about taxpayers being forced by the government to pay for things they don't want to pay about. For example, taxpayers roughly have spent at least $2.1 trillion to bailout various companies since the 1970's. Close to 75% of the total amount in bailout money has been given out during the Bush administration, though I don't fault him for it.
http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

[C&CDean]

You're proving my point about taxpayers being forced by the government to pay for things they don't want to pay about. For example, taxpayers roughly have spent at least $2.1 trillion to bailout various companies since the 1970's. Close to 75% of the total amount in bailout money has been given out during the Bush administration, though I don't fault him for it.
http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

OK. No argument from me. Now, go post the #s of the "bailouts" us taxpayers have given to those who choose not to work. Never mind Bush's reign, just focus on Obama's. You will be shocked.

[AlboSooner]

OK. No argument from me. Now, go post the #s of the "bailouts" us taxpayers have given to those who choose not to work. Never mind Bush's reign, just focus on Obama's. You will be shocked.

Dean, did you not really expect Obama to spend a lot? People knew he wanted to spend a lot of money, especially on the health-care reform, and they still voted for him. Or is it a case of seeing something actualize and shocking you even more.


I am against welfare abuse and fraud, but I am not against welfare for those people who really need. What about you Dean?

[C&CDean]

Dean, did you not really expect Obama to spend a lot? People knew he wanted to spend a lot of money, especially on the health-care reform, and they still voted for him. Or is it a case of seeing something actualize and shocking you even more.


I am against welfare abuse and fraud, but I am not against welfare for those people who really need. What about you Dean?

Well honestly? I'm against welfare. Period. Eventually, the line has to be drawn in the sand. My mother feeds the homeless, and I donate a ****pot of money to help them out as well. My pittance is merely a microdot in the bucket, but eventually, folks have got to learn to catch fish on their own. Yes, there are those who truly need. There are just as many (actually more) who just want and take. The system is ****ed. Dump it, and let the chips fall where they may. You'd be shocked at just how resourceful these dregs of society can be. Hell, they can find a soup kitchen within 10 miles, find a free handout within 100, and alway figure out a way to get their welfare/food stamps/disability delivered directly to them without delay.

And when you say "they voted for him" you are really saying "they voted for him." I sure as hell didn't. I honestly didn't expect the boy to **** it up as bad as he has. I am not giving him the free pass you seem to be giving just because "you expected it and it's groovy." Obama has screwed the pooch. And the cat, the hamster, the gerbil, the baby rabbit on the back porch, and your grandmother's memory just for kicks.

[GrapevineSooner]

It's a good thing we have all these fine folks to level fingers and demonize people. Because liberals are the debbil, right?

Why does it have to be about "liberals" and "conservatives"? Like party lines and political positions are hand in hand with sin and righteousness? Does that not strike you folks as odd?

Can we agree that a 90% pension with another retirement vehicle to essentially double up on that pension plus 100% healthcare coverage during employment is too much? Is excessive? I bet we could. Could we agree that the pension issues in Wisconsin are only 3-4% of the state budget shortfall? From what I've read, we should. Could we agree that collective bargaining as a process between employee and employer is actually a GOOD thing to establish reasonable, market driven wages? And that binding arbitration as an enforcement system is wholly based on the right of the employer to submit bargained options to the will of the people through a vote? And that withOUT collective bargaining and binding arbitration you don't solve A) the state's budget concerns or B) the pension issues? But to trump all of that, can we agree that in states such as Wisconsin the existence of employee unions has grown into a shade of its former self to become a self-sustaining monster instead of the defender of the working man's rights as is found in many other instances?

People, there's sense on BOTH sides of this fight. It absolutely kills me to hear folks carrying a "liberal" spear or the "conservative" shield as if they're marching to war like good little soldiers. There are reasonable arguments to be had from both. There are changes necessary from both. And somewhere in that middle ground away from the Limbaughs and Huffingtons is an island of sensibility. And there's just as many sharks to both sides of that island.

Because to some people, politics are like spectator sports where you choose one side and spend all your time demonizing the other side without actual facts.

[Midtowner]

Huh? We spend a HELL of a lot more taxpaying dollar baling out the poor than we do the rich. Even my dumb, inbred, toothless Okie *** knows that.

Why spend $.01 bailing out the rich?

[C&CDean]

Why spend $.01 bailing out the rich?

I don't know, why? I'm rich (by dumb Okie standards) and I don't see one dollar being spent to bail me out.

If you're talking GM, or the myriad other cluster****s Obama has nursed out of hot water then I'm with you. If you're talking those folks who earn their way then no, I ain't with you.

[StoopTroup]

.

[Midtowner]

I don't know, why? I'm rich (by dumb Okie standards) and I don't see one dollar being spent to bail me out.

If you're talking GM, or the myriad other cluster****s Obama has nursed out of hot water then I'm with you. If you're talking those folks who earn their way then no, I ain't with you.

I'm talking about the billions spent bailing out the banks.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm talking about the billions spent bailing out the banks.Lotsa deals made there, no doubt. Just like the massive and ongoing porkulous that followed.

[GKeeper316]

Well at least you said "he."

when speaking or writing rhetorically, its proper grammar to use the masculine form pronouns.

[GKeeper316]

Why can't I deduct my fuel and depreciate my vehicles on my taxes? Why can't I declare bankruptcy like a rich guy with a hobby on the side? Why do we have to pay taxes at all if we work a 2nd job to get ourselves out of financial trouble?

I'm not even saying I think people who do shouldn't...I just think our tax codes really have become a huge obstacle in getting ahead.

I have a friend that told me about this really poor Family that wanted to open their own Restaurant here in Tulsa and they scrimped and saved and got the place open and their Utilities rates started to go out of sight as the City didn't want to see them put the restaurant there. Now...is it because the City is run by a bunch of idiots or is it because someone wanted the City's help getting rid of them in the area? What ever it was....those folks didn't give up and they kept at it. What if they'd had a little help? They could open another one but that's where lots of folks make mistakes. They think they can overcome it with two or three stores but instead of getting help from the City for creating jobs and income so people will buy a house and spend their income...they do everything they can to get rid of them. As soon as a Corporate Food Chain comes rolling in...they kiss their *** and cut deals to get them to put stores everywhere.

Change some of these really bad bureaucracies and level the playing fields and I think we'd see a lot less reason to have to bail out anyone. Want to get bailed out? Run a good business and declare bankruptcy when you can't make it work. As long as you run it well you should be OK but we all know there are deals out there that give one guy an edge over another....

the money you have to spend to open a restaurant in oklahoma is ridiculous. you gotta have a license for ****in everything. i know many people that went broke before they even got the doors open, just because of all the bull**** the state makes you go through.

[GKeeper316]

my question in this whole debacle is why havn't they gone after the police and fire unions? why single out teachers, who are already paid ****?

a first year (just off his probation) fireman in oklahoma city makes more than my dad (teacher) who has an mba and a juris doctorate.

[MamaMia]

my question in this whole debacle is why havn't they gone after the police and fire unions? why single out teachers, who are already paid ****?

a first year (just off his probation) fireman in oklahoma city makes more than my dad (teacher) who has an mba and a juris doctorate.Thats a real good question. Walker has now hired attorneys at the taxpayers expense to fight Judge Sumi. Why not just vote on it again, after a 24 hour notice, get the case dismissed and be done with it? Even I knew that the Dem's would make an argument over the 2 hour notice thing, warranted or not. Why did he even go there? There had been 3 weeks of protests. Whats another 24 hours? This grandstanding is costly. The state is broke. Every penny counts. The FOUR attorneys handling the Republicans side are expensive. The judge is an idiot, and being petty herself but now is not the time for anyone to be petty. It seems hypocritical and stubborn of him to spend more money when he doesn't have to.

[hawaii 5-0]

The Dems are just stalling to give them time to recall enough Republicans and get the bill overturned again. Some Republican legislators are already having second thoughts about selling their souls for corporate interests and not the will of the People. They might change their tune if the Bill comes up again.

Of course, they're going after Walker too but that will take a year.


5-0

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It's a good thing we have all these fine folks to level fingers and demonize people. Because liberals are the debbil, right?

Why does it have to be about "liberals" and "conservatives"? Like party lines and political positions are hand in hand with sin and righteousness? Does that not strike you folks as odd?

Can we agree that a 90% pension with another retirement vehicle to essentially double up on that pension plus 100% healthcare coverage during employment is too much? Is excessive? I bet we could. Could we agree that the pension issues in Wisconsin are only 3-4% of the state budget shortfall? From what I've read, we should. Could we agree that collective bargaining as a process between employee and employer is actually a GOOD thing to establish reasonable, market driven wages? And that binding arbitration as an enforcement system is wholly based on the right of the employer to submit bargained options to the will of the people through a vote? And that withOUT collective bargaining and binding arbitration you don't solve A) the state's budget concerns or B) the pension issues? But to trump all of that, can we agree that in states such as Wisconsin the existence of employee unions has grown into a shade of its former self to become a self-sustaining monster instead of the defender of the working man's rights as is found in many other instances?

People, there's sense on BOTH sides of this fight. It absolutely kills me to hear folks carrying a "liberal" spear or the "conservative" shield as if they're marching to war like good little soldiers. There are reasonable arguments to be had from both. There are changes necessary from both. And somewhere in that middle ground away from the Limbaughs and Huffingtons is an island of sensibility. And there's just as many sharks to both sides of that island.

Can we agree that unions served a noble and just purpose, but unfortunately killed the goose that laid the golden eggs?

I'll take your word for it that pensions account for only a small percent of the shortfall. But it's a ticking time bomb. Here in Calif we have public service retirees with 6 figure pensions as far as the eye can see.

The payouts are based on future revenues which were calculated in good times.

[SoonerKnight]

It's funny how they had to just get rid of bargaining to balance the budget. Never mind that the previous governor already had a balanced budget proposal that would not have required this or the fact that the first things the republicans did was tax cut the wealthy! Now do I think that the public sectors had a little too much of a good thing of course. But the Governor should have spread the pain about. Did they need to get rid of bargaining? Simple answer is NO!

[MamaMia]

Why Collective Bargaining is Bad

Townhall.com
March 3, 2011: Howard Rich

A decade ago, when our national debt stood at a “mere” $5.6 trillion, the federal government was already dramatically overpaying its employees to perform all sorts of non-core functions.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, compensation for the average federal position in 2000 exceeded compensation for the average private sector job by $30,415 – a sizable gap that has since exploded to $61,998. Now the average federal employee’s compensation totals $123,409 – or more than twice the average private sector salary.

Federal workers have seen their total compensation soar by 36.9 percent since 2000 – after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, private sector compensation has increased by only 8.8 percent.

Also, in spite of a recession that saw the loss of 8 million private sector jobs there are more federal employees working today – 2.15 million – than ever before.

In addition to generous salaries, health care coverage and inflation-protected pensions, public sector employees also receive more vacation time, holidays and sick days than their private sector counterparts.

Needless to say, federal workers have secured much of this largesse thanks to collective bargaining. The same can be said of public school teachers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin – where the average compensation package was recently valued at $100,005.

But public sector collective bargaining isn’t your typical collective bargaining. In fact, it represents an unnatural perversion of a failed private sector experiment – an unfair tactic that continues to be exploited to the detriment of taxpayers. In fact, only now that a line has been drawn in the sand in Wisconsin (one of dozens of states struggling to balance its budget due to the stranglehold of public sector unions) do we see the true cost to taxpayers coming into focus.

In the private sector, collective bargaining is ostensibly driven by market forces. Both workers and managers rely on profits, and so negotiations are (in theory, anyway) conducted with the goal of creating a larger pie for everyone to share. Obviously this hasn’t been the objective of union bosses, which is why the free market has largely weeded their unions out of the economy.

Currently only 7.2 percent of America’s private sector workforce is unionized – down from a World War II-era peak of 33.9 percent. This trend is reversed in the public sector, however, where unions now comprise 36.8 percent of the workforce – up from 9.8 percent in the 1940s.

Why this dichotomy? One reason is that collective bargaining in the public sector is a self-perpetuating process – one that is rigged to continue funneling benefits to workers regardless of whether those benefits are deserved (or whether the work being performed by these employees is even necessary).

For example, not only is government in charge of regulating its interaction with the private sector but unlike the private sector, it is funded by a compulsory revenue stream. And with no balanced budget requirement at the federal level, politicians act as if there is a limitless supply of tax dollars with which to continue feeding union demands. Meanwhile state governments continue to be bailed out by the federal government’s borrowed billions – dumping disproportionate percentages of this money into generous employee salaries and benefits while complaining when core services go unfunded.

Also the structure of collective bargaining in the public sector is fundamentally out-of-balance – which invariably results in unions being represented on both sides of the negotiating table. Not only are union demands voiced by their immediate representatives, they are echoed by numerous bought and paid for politicians (who are supposed to be negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers). Even politicians who are not in the pocket of unions are subject to the political pressure this uniquely powerful special interest can apply.

Obviously the money extracted during this perverse “bargaining” process must come from somewhere – a reality that even supporters of big government are beginning to acknowledge.

“Collective bargaining in the public sector serves to reduce benefits for citizens and to raise costs for taxpayers,” writes David C. Crane, a Democrat who serves on the California Board of Regents.

That is the true war being fought in Wisconsin – and make no mistake that its outcome will go a long way in determining whether government at all levels rids itself of this menace or becomes even more hopelessly enslaved to its demands.

[SoonerKnight]

No offence but most of that is horse****! First of all the pay has gone down for private sector because there are no unions to fight for wage increases. Second, federal workers don't get paid really all that much and those benefits cost that employee out of their small salary. When I was a federal worker my check after their so called benefits which are the same for all federal workers was about $720 every two weeks if I put in a lot of overtime and if I lived there then I could actually make $900 every two weeks.

When I worked for a private company we was told work hard and efficient and we will give you a bonus. The branch manager embezzled the money! No bonuses for us. When I worked for the feds they said work hard and efficient and we will give you a bonus of $500. Well I got a partial of that because the manager (one of too many) took a little off the top then gave some to us. Some of the employees got great reviews but no bonus cuz there name was on the bottom of the list and as one manager told one of them. We ran out of money so get over it!

Now my mother was a federal worker for 22 years and worked hard supporting the men and women in the Air Force. My dad he was in two wars Korea and Vietnam and then worked for the postal service. I'm not sure I can understand the disdain for public sector workers. After all most of my jobs I had to swear allegiance to this country and the Constitution but hey whatever. Oh and I get better benefits now than when I worked for the feds!!!!

[MamaMia]

No offence but most of that is horse****! First of all the pay has gone down for private sector because there are no unions to fight for wage increases. Second, federal workers don't get paid really all that much and those benefits cost that employee out of their small salary. When I was a federal worker my check after their so called benefits which are the same for all federal workers was about $720 every two weeks if I put in a lot of overtime and if I lived there then I could actually make $900 every two weeks.

When I worked for a private company we was told work hard and efficient and we will give you a bonus. The branch manager embezzled the money! No bonuses for us. When I worked for the feds they said work hard and efficient and we will give you a bonus of $500. Well I got a partial of that because the manager (one of too many) took a little off the top then gave some to us. Some of the employees got great reviews but no bonus cuz there name was on the bottom of the list and as one manager told one of them. We ran out of money so get over it!

Now my mother was a federal worker for 22 years and worked hard supporting the men and women in the Air Force. My dad he was in two wars Korea and Vietnam and then worked for the postal service. I'm not sure I can understand the disdain for public sector workers. After all most of my jobs I had to swear allegiance to this country and the Constitution but hey whatever. Oh and I get better benefits now than when I worked for the feds!!!!

USA Today would beg to differ. Your personal experience is not the norm.

Federal Workers Earning Double Their Private Counterparts

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.
Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are the latest available.

The federal compensation advantage has grown from $30,415 in 2000 to $61,998 last year.

Public employee unions say the compensation gap reflects the increasingly high level of skill and education required for most federal jobs and the government contracting out lower-paid jobs to the private sector in recent years."The data are not useful for a direct public-private pay comparison," says Colleen Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union...

*Chris Edwards, a budget analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, thinks otherwise. "Can't we now all agree that federal workers are overpaid and do something about it?" he asks.

Last week, President Obama ordered a freeze on bonuses for 2,900 political appointees. For the rest of the 2-million-person federal workforce, Obama asked for a 1.4% across-the-board pay hike in 2011, the smallest in more than a decade. Federal workers also would qualify for seniority pay hikes.

Congressional Republicans want to cancel the across-the-board increase in 2011, which would save $2.2 billion.

"Americans are fed up with public employee pay scales far exceeding that in the private sector," says Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., the second-ranking Republican in the House. Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., says a pay freeze would unfairly scapegoat federal workers without addressing real budget problems.

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

[MamaMia]

.

[Midtowner]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Perhaps then, we ought to be taxing the top 1% at a much higher rate so that we can still have a middle class? These attacks on the middle class are over the top. The rich can't profit from a consumer economy without consumers.

[GrapevineSooner]

Or perhaps we should cut spending.

Novel idea, I know.

[Veritas]

Or perhaps we should cut spending.

Novel idea, I know.
Yup. Slash both sacred cows, defense and entitlements.

But it'll never happen.

[soonercoop1]

Definitely a waste of time by the liberal/progressives as all they had to do was post the vote on a bulletin board (they did)...they also gave them a couple of hours notice to boot as if the liberal/progressive scumbags didn't already know what was going on...

[pphilfran]

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_1.gif

Perhaps then, we ought to be taxing the top 1% at a much higher rate so that we can still have a middle class? These attacks on the middle class are over the top. The rich can't profit from a consumer economy without consumers.

I agree...but we must look for the root cause to find a workable solution...raising the tax rate won't do chit over the long run...they will continue to get paid more to make up for the tax loss...and the workers continue to less of the pie...

As far as a root cause I offer up several possibilities...and these might not actually be the root cause...poor trade agreements are a far more likely culprit...though the inability to effect change is also in the running...

1. Prior to the 60's (possibly the 70's) there was little or no import competition...US companies could set price and pay scale and not have to worry about a Japan (initially), Korea, or China taking market share and causing severe pressure on prices, wages, and benefits...

1a. That foreign competition caused the growth business plan of many businesses and the fed to become unworkable...without long term growth at past levels the profit margin growth suffered...and when it comes to cost cutting to meet that expected growth you will find that labor is by far the easiest to cut...work force, salary, and benefits all suffered...and continue to do so...

2. Millions of illegals taking low wage jobs at wages less than minimum wage...those poverty level workers cause a wage ripple effect throughout all of the lower and mid level wage earners...

3. The big box stores have hurt the small business that did not adjust...only those smart enough to find the niche succeeded...it was much easier to be a successful self owned retailer prior to the Wal Marts and Targets...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I agree...but we must look for the root cause to find a workable solution...raising the tax rate won't do chit over the long run...they will continue to get paid more to make up for the tax loss...and the workers continue to less of the pie...

As far as a root cause I offer up several possibilities...and these might not actually be the root cause...poor trade agreements are a far more likely culprit...though the inability to effect change is also in the running...

1. Prior to the 60's (possibly the 70's) there was little or no import competition...US companies could set price and pay scale and not have to worry about a Japan (initially), Korea, or China taking market share and causing severe pressure on prices, wages, and benefits...

1a. That foreign competition caused the growth business plan of many businesses and the fed to become unworkable...without long term growth at past levels the profit margin growth suffered...and when it comes to cost cutting to meet that expected growth you will find that labor is by far the easiest to cut...work force, salary, and benefits all suffered...and continue to do so...

2. Millions of illegals taking low wage jobs at wages less than minimum wage...those poverty level workers cause a wage ripple effect throughout all of the lower and mid level wage earners...

3. The big box stores have hurt the small business that did not adjust...only those smart enough to find the niche succeeded...it was much easier to be a successful self owned retailer prior to the Wal Marts and Targets...

Phil,

1. you didn't mention the real culprit: technology. We are more productive with fewer workers in the manufacturing sector due to technological advances. Note that the output is measured in constant dollars, not inflated dollars.

http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png

2. We need to approve the trade agreements with Korea, Colombia, and Panama. This would be quite an accomplishment for Obama if he can get the deals done. I'm glad to hear he is visiting Brazil, Chile and El Salvador. They are examples of Latin American countries on the right political track. It sends a clear middle finger message to leftist Venezuela and Bolivia. China has now surpassed the U.S. as the leading exporter to Brazil. We need to grow, grow, grow, U.S. exports.

[StoopTroup]

.

[SoonerKnight]

Mamma,
I wonder if the data is skewed as there are two types of retirement plans for Federal employees. The first was discontinued under Reagan and a lot of those workers are about to or have retired. That is the plan that was stopped in 1984 or 1985. Workers hired before then could retire without Social Security and therfore contribute more into FERS which is the federal retirement system. Opposed to now when the employee pays into Social Security and the retirement which is less than it was and an optional 401K like retirement system which is exactly like the extra retirement the millitary can contribute too. Now instead of reading a newspaper article that fails to mention this little fact and skews the data. Let's look at reall life:

My mother retired from Civil Service 22 years about $1200 amonth is that a lot? Well lets consider this she was part of the old retirement system and did not pay into social security but she did pay into from the tim she was 16 until she started with feds in her 30's so a little more than 15-20 years. So does she get to draw from that. Well yes but she was penalized for being on the government's retirement and not paying into social security so when she should get $600 a month she gets a whopping $120 a month.Long story short she still has to work for a living and she does not make all that much in retirment. :rolleyes:

[SoonerKnight]

Oh and the feds still have crappy dental insurance they don't take that into account. It's expensive and pays nothing the bastards. The medical isn't that great either in my opinion. Like I said I have better benefits now.

[SoonerKnight]

http://www.myfederalretirement.com/public/288print.cfm

I guess it was called something else back then and it was 1983 they passed the law.


Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) Guide:
How the Social Security WEP Affects Federal Retirees & Spouses
Edward A. Zurndorfer, CFP
Most Americans pay into the Social Security system by having the Federal

Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax deducted from their paychecks. Currently,

the FICA tax of 6.2 percent is applied to an employee's wages.



Many individuals, including federal employees covered by the Civil Service

Retirement System (CSRS), Americans employed in foreign countries by foreign

employers, and some state public employees do not contribute to Social Security.

In spite of their not being able to contribute to the Social Security system in

their jobs, many of the aforementioned individuals have at some time during

their working careers been able to earn the required minimum 40 "quarters of

coverage" or credits to qualify for Social Security retirement payments. Before

1983, these workers were able to receive the maximum benefits from both Social

Security and their public pensions.


However, in 1983 Congress passed the "Windfall Elimination Provision" (WEP)

in order to eliminate this advantage. In particular, if an individual is covered

by a public pension plan (such as CSRS) and has less than 30 years of

"substantial" Social Security covered earnings while working in the private

sector, the amount of Social Security benefits they receive will be reduced. The

Social Security benefits are reduced for affected individuals; those:



reaching age 62 after December 31, 1985;

becoming disabled after December 31, 1985; or

becoming first eligible for a monthly pension after December 31, 1985 based
on non-covered Social Security employment.


Why did Congress create the WEP in 1983?


Perhaps the motivation to create it was to remove any possible inequalities

of Social Security benefits of employees not paying into Social Security but

paying into a government retirement plan. These employees would earn their 40

credits outside of federal service and subsequently earn Social Security

benefits that are as relatively high as those benefits earned by employees who

paid into Social Security their entire working careers. The "inequality" problem

occurs because the threshold for coverage of Social Security retirement benefits

is rather low and monthly retirement benefits accrue rather quickly at the lower

end of the earnings scale. For 2008, full retirement benefits accrue at 90

percent of the first $711 of an individual's average indexed monthly earnings

(AIME) and then accrue at a lesser rate of 32 percent, finally reaching an

accrual rate of 15 percent. The most important thing for federal employees to

understand is that the WEP will reduce, but will not eliminate, an individual's

Social Security benefit by as much as 55 percent.


Which federal workers are affected by the WEP and how do they

determine how the WEP affects their Social Security benefits?


The Social Security Administration (SSA) has a publication, SSA Publication

No. 05-10045 (downloadable at www.ssa.gov)

which explains the WEP. Perhaps the most important portion in the SSA

publication is the table (reproduced below) that shows the effect of the WEP on

an affected annuitant's Social Security benefits.


CSRS and CSRS-Offset employees, and "Trans-FERS" (employees who joined FERS

in 1987 or 1998 after working at least five years under CSRS), could be affected

by the WEP. FERS-covered employees are not affected by the WEP because they have

regularly paid into Social Security. With respect to CSRS-Offset employees (many

of whom are entitled to two Social Security checks - one check based on federal

CSRS Offset service and the other check based on non-federal service), the WEP

could affect the Social Security retirement check that is based solely on

non-federal service.


3 steps to calculate the WEP reduction in your Social Security

retirement benefit, if you are affected


To calculate the potential reduction of the WEP on affected individual's

Social Security retirement benefit, he or she needs to reference two tables on

the SSA Web site at www.ssa.gov and follow

these three steps.



Step 1


Determine the number of years of "substantial" earnings. An individual needs

to look at his or her Social Security statement (received annually) and

determine how many years of "substantial" Social Security wages he or she has

accumulated. The SSA has a table on its Web site (at href="http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html">www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html) that

lists "substantial" earnings per year since 1937. For example, "substantial

earnings" during 2005 was $16,725.


Step 2


Once the number of years of substantial earnings has been established, the

reduction in benefits is found by referring to the WEP chart on the SSA Web site

at href="http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm">www.ssa.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm

and attached below. For example, suppose a 62 year CSRS annuitant (age 62 is the

"eligibility year" or ELY) with 15 years of "substantial earnings" begins to

receive Social Security during 2008. On the chart under "20 or less years" of

substantial earnings, this individual's Social Security would be reduced by

$355.50. For example, if the individual was to receive a monthly benefit of

$600, then the actual benefit due to the WEP reduction would be $600 less

$355.50, or $244.50 per month.


Step 3


There is a limit on the WEP reduction equal to 50 percent of the non-Social

Security pension (e.g. CSRS). For example, if the CSRS annuitant above receives

a CSRS annuity pension of $300 a month, the WEP reduction would be limited to

$150.


Some other considerations about the WEP



The WEP does not affect an individual who continues to work and is drawing
Social Security benefits. For example, a federal employee who has

reached full retirement age continues to work for the federal

government and is drawing his or her own Social Security retirement

benefits. Those benefits will not be affected by the WEP. The

WEP takes effect once the individual retires from federal

service.




If a federal annuitant affected by the WEP is married, then his or her
spouse (or former spouse) is eligible for half of the annuitant's Social

Security retirement benefit ("spousal/former spousal" benefit). This assumes

that the spouse's or the former spouse's own Social Security benefits are less

than half of the annuitant's Social Security benefits. However, spousal/formal

spousal Social Security benefits are also affected by the WEP. If the annuitant

dies and the spouse/former spouse is entitled to the deceased's Social Security

("survivor" benefit), then the WEP no longer applies. In other words, the

spouse/former is entitled to the deceased federal annuitant's full Social

Security benefit without a reduction for the WEP.


Because the effect of the WEP is not included on an individual's Social

Security annual reporting statement, many federal employees are shocked when

they start receiving their Social Security retirement or disability benefits. As

a result of Congressional hearings that provided woeful tales of individuals who

expected Social Security payments based on the information provided by the SSA

but ended up with much less, Congress passed the Social Security Protection Act

of 2004. This law requires better disclosure of payment adjustments due to the WEP.

[pphilfran]

Dental shouldn't cost more than 40 or 50 bucks a month...

One reason health insurance is so costly is because we expect insurance to cover every nickle and dime injury...

And since everything is covered we don't really care of the cost at the time of procedure...

[SoonerKnight]

Dental shouldn't cost more than 40 or 50 bucks a month...

One reason health insurance is so costly is because we expect insurance to cover every nickle and dime injury...

And since everything is covered we don't really care of the cost at the time of procedure...

The feds offer only one plant that is tied into a plan with Kaiser and Delta. The plan sucks in my opinion. I have better coverage for less cost now!

My benefits cost me a whopping $700 deduction from my check and that includes taxes SSI etc...

$1400 amonth! Is that low?

[C&CDean]

SoonerKnight,

You are so far off-base with your mom story that it's damn near laughable. I'm not doubting that your mom makes $120 per month, but it damn sure isn't on a CSRS retirement. Probably not even on a FERS. $120 per month is like $4 per day. Nope. Unless the rest of your story isn't correct, it isn't possible.

[pphilfran]

The feds offer only one plant that is tied into a plan with Kaiser and Delta. The plan sucks in my opinion. I have better coverage for less cost now!

My benefits cost me a whopping $700 deduction from my check and that includes taxes SSI etc...

$1400 amonth! Is that low?

I don't understand...what are you receiving for $1400 a month?

[C&CDean]

I think a bottle of Ripple and now he's durnk.

[pphilfran]

I think a bottle of Ripple and now he's durnk.



Only one?

[C&CDean]

That **** has gone up, yo. Obama kinda digs it.

[pphilfran]

That **** has gone up, yo. Obama kinda digs it.

:)

[Mongo]

Oh and the feds still have crappy dental insurance they don't take that into account. It's expensive and pays nothing the bastards. The medical isn't that great either in my opinion. Like I said I have better benefits now.

Who said that **** should be paid for or chipped in on in the first place? Knock off the cable or satellite tv, and possibly minimize a car or house payment to provide yourself coverage.

[SoonerKnight]

SoonerKnight,

You are so far off-base with your mom story that it's damn near laughable. I'm not doubting that your mom makes $120 per month, but it damn sure isn't on a CSRS retirement. Probably not even on a FERS. $120 per month is like $4 per day. Nope. Unless the rest of your story isn't correct, it isn't possible.


Dean,
With all due respect I sad $1200 amonth on her federal retirement and she was penalized for not paying into Social Security and only draws $120 from Social Security!

[SoonerKnight]

I don't understand...what are you receiving for $1400 a month?

Medical, Dental, Retirement and Social Security and other taxes about 350 of it or half $700 amonth is taxes the other is health, dental, retirment etc....

[pphilfran]

Medical, Dental, Retirement and Social Security and other taxes about 350 of it or half $700 amonth is taxes the other is health, dental, retirment etc....

You are getting a bargain...$350 a month for for health, dental, and retirement?

I can't make heads or tails of your ranting...

[Mongo]

I love it when people who choose public service bitch about benefits. Why dont you pimp slap a tax payer? Cut out the middle man for your rage

[SoonerKnight]

You are getting a bargain...$350 a month for for health, dental, and retirement?

I can't make heads or tails of your ranting...

$700 for benefits :rolleyes: pay tention!

[SoonerKnight]

Read the original post then you might understand.

[C&CDean]

Dean,
With all due respect I sad $1200 amonth on her federal retirement and she was penalized for not paying into Social Security and only draws $120 from Social Security!

Ooohhh. SS. I don't pay into it and I will never draw a dime from it. She's damn lucky to be pulling a buck twenty from that POS.

[pphilfran]

$700 for benefits :rolleyes: pay tention!

Healthcare, dental, vision?, and retirement?

That is still reasonable...

[Tulsa_Fireman]

It is.

And every dime not out of her own pocket for healthcare benefits is a dime more than Oklahoma state police and fire retirees receive. Speaking of dimes, that's the other side of the coin.

Zero healthcare contributions post-retirement. That's a pretty square, private sector kinda deal, ain't it? That's the difference between Oklahoma and the self-serving morons in Wisconsin and California.

[SoonerKnight]

It is.

And every dime not out of her own pocket for healthcare benefits is a dime more than Oklahoma state police and fire retirees receive. Speaking of dimes, that's the other side of the coin.

Zero healthcare contributions post-retirement. That's a pretty square, private sector kinda deal, ain't it? That's the difference between Oklahoma and the self-serving morons in Wisconsin and California.

Actually I don't know what my moms contribution for health is. Mine $700 amonth roughly. Besides we all know fire fighters are over paid! ;)

[cccasooner2]

Screwing the old folks in Michigan too.

Retirees up in arms over governor's proposal to tax pensions in order to cut taxes on business.

By MSN Money partner on Thu, Mar 17, 2011 4:27 PM



This article is by Kathy Barks Hoffman of The Associated Press.



Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is drawing recall threats and angry protests over his attempt to do what no Michigan governor has tried in more than 40 years: Tax the pension and 401(k) incomes of millions of retirees.



The move has brought demonstrators to the Capitol and has thousands of seniors reminding the new governor that they could make re-election difficult for him and lawmakers who go along. Democrats oppose the move, and even some GOP lawmakers are casting about for an alternative to avoid raising taxes on a powerful interest group.



Snyder remains undeterred. The multimillionaire former Gateway computer executive says Michigan -- which has some of the nation's most generous senior tax breaks -- can't afford the $900 million it loses because of them, and that retirees need to pay their share rather than pushing the burden onto younger residents.



Arnold Eick, a 73-year-old former General Motors manager, says he needs those tax breaks to stay afloat. Like many retirees, he's incensed that he and the working poor who would lose a tax credit are being asked to pay more so Snyder can reduce business taxes.



"I just can't understand how anybody can be that unfair, that evil, to take from the poor and give to the rich," Eick said.



Michigan currently charges no income tax on public pensions and exempts up to $45,120 worth of income from private pensions, 401(k)s and IRAs for an individual retiree, with limits of twice that for a retired couple. Treasury figures show about a fifth of the tax returns filed each year include pension income.



Eick says his out-of-pocket health expenses hit $27,000 over a three-year period because GM took away health care for salaried retirees. If the pension exemption also ends, the Flushing resident estimates he and his wife may owe $3,000 in annual income tax -- something he says could make meeting his mortgage payment impossible.



"We're going to have to leave our home," he said while carrying a sign promising retribution. "I'm old but I can recall two things," it said. "1. Tax refunds. 2. You."



Snyder campaigned last year on a promise to replace the complex and unpopular Michigan Business Tax with a 6% corporate income tax, a move that would eliminate $1.7 billion in revenue. But he didn't reveal until last month that he wanted to pay for it by requiring more money from individual taxpayers.



The governor has put the business tax cut and pension tax increase into one bill so lawmakers cannot choose between them. But many Republicans see Snyder's plan as violating their pledge not to raise taxes, and some lawmakers are talking about shrinking the size of the business tax cut so they don't have to totally eliminate senior tax breaks.



"I like the governor's business tax, but I don't think seniors should have to pay for it," said GOP Sen. Jack Brandenburg, from a traditionally anti-tax district north of Detroit. "If he puts this in with this business tax (cut), I will not vote for it. . . . It's going to go down."



Snyder says the business tax cuts are needed to help the struggling state add jobs. He argues that Michigan should never have exempted public pensions in the 1960s or eliminated taxes on other retirement income since then. He also wants to eliminate a $2,300-per-person tax break for those 65 and over and reduce the credit seniors get for property tax payments.



Retiree James Baker sees it as an example of efforts by Republican governors like Wisconsin's Scott Walker to attack the middle class and help the businesses that donated to their campaigns. And like many in that state, he's ready to rise up and demand that Michigan's governor back down.



"It's an issue he's using to shift taxes away from businesses," said Baker, 58, who retired in 2009 after working 31 years as a state environmental analyst and who would pay roughly $1,350 in taxes on his annual $32,000 pension. "I do think he's on the same page as Governor Walker."



Mike Martin, a 60-year-old recently retired Treasury worker from Kalamazoo, says he could see taxing a portion of his $39,000 pension -- but not if the money is going to go toward cutting corporate taxes by 86 percent.



Snyder says his plan doesn't hurt low-income retirees. Social Security payments would be exempt from the state's 4.25% income tax, and retired couples with $40,000 or less in income wouldn't pay any income tax on their retirement income. Those making more would see their income taxes range from several hundred dollars for those making over $40,000 to several thousand dollars for those with retirement income nearer $100,000.



"The worry that I hear people expressing is that Grandma will have to really skimp while the attorney in the $1,500 suit will get a tax cut. ... I think that's misleading," said Michigan State University economics professor Charles Ballard. "Under the current law, you could have a senior citizen couple with retirement income well over $100,000 and they pay not a penny of income tax. Whereas the 38-year-old single mom trying to make it as a nurse's aide has a tiny fraction of that and yet she pays income tax."



Snyder says it's unfair to ask other taxpayers to shoulder the cost of services the growing number of seniors need while they pay nothing.



"I think it's a real fair question to say, shouldn't they pay the same amount you and I pay?" he told The Associated Press.



Michigan isn't the only state rethinking senior tax breaks. In Illinois, the Democratic president of the Senate suggested that the state consider taxing the pensions or 401(k) income of wealthier retirees. And Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii proposed taxing the pensions of individuals with an adjusted gross income of more than $37,500 and couples receiving more than $75,000. Unhappy seniors persuaded a legislative committee to more than double the limits.



Taking on politically powerful retirees can be a tricky business, said Elizabeth McNichol of the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.



"I don't think it's the worst idea in the world to better target senior tax cuts," she says. "But it needs to be done carefully."



Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

[hawaii 5-0]

In my wife's hometown of Janesville, WI the learning- support teachers, program-support teachers, library media specialists, reading and writing specialists and guidance counselors are getting their layoff notices.


How's that for promised job creation?


5-0

[soonercruiser]

Sorry! But I can't believe that anyone would be "up in arms" about paying taxes on their retirement benefits!
Even I do as a military retiree.
You get free $$; you pay taxes!
Duh!

[pphilfran]

Sorry! But I can't believe that anyone would be "up in arms" about paying taxes on their retirement benefits!
Even I do as a military retiree.
You get free $$; you pay taxes!
Duh!

And on top of that we see a 73 year old retiree that still has a mortgage...duh....

[soonercruiser]

Here's an interesting piece of history that puts the present union conflict in Wisconson in perspective.

http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/roa018.htm



The following document was written in 1972 for use in the training of teachers. If many recognize it as the facilitative process, the Delphi technique, to which they have been exposed, such is because they are one and the same. This process has been around for a long time, being perfected and fine-tuned, awaiting the time when it would be implemented extensively in the interests of transforming America.

Alinsky for Teacher Organizers

By

J. Michael Arisman

Midwest Training Consultant
National Education Association

Introduction

The Industrial Areas Foundation is a training institute for community organizers. The IAF was run by Saul Alinsky until his death in June of 1972. Edward Chambers is its Associate Director, and Richard Harmon is Director of Field Operations. In January of 1972, Alinsky, Chambers and Harmon conducted a training program for UniServ personnel in the State of Kentucky, and in February a training program for Illinois UniServ personnel. The material enclosed is drawn from those training programs in the "Principles of Organizing."

The reader will note that the text makes constant reference to Alinsky, but not to Chambers or Harmon. This is merely a convenience. Alinsky, Chambers and Harmon all contributed to the views which we identify here as Alinsky's. Their conceptualization of the task of organizing is identical in all substantial regard. This is why a combination of views can be described as Alinsky's. It should be noted, however, that selection of material for inclusion in the article, as well as phraseology, is the author's, and is not the responsibility of the IAF staff.

[Mongo]

In my wife's hometown of Janesville, WI the learning- support teachers, program-support teachers, library media specialists, reading and writing specialists and guidance counselors are getting their layoff notices.


How's that for promised job creation?


5-0

Sucks to be unemployed, but boo ****ing hoo. They are on the public nickel. When those nickels dry up they need to find employment elsewhere.

Sympathy for public workers is drying up faster than a menopausel woman. Bitch slaps should be legal against public workers and unions who fight for bennies when the rest are without. Like these days.

My pimp hand is extra strong these days

[SanJoaquinSooner]

What a bunch of crap Juan. But I'm too busy marching toward 50k to explain why in any meaningful way

No ****.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Sucks to be unemployed, but boo ****ing hoo. They are on the public nickel. When those nickels dry up they need to find employment elsewhere.

Sympathy for public workers is drying up faster than a menopausel woman. Bitch slaps should be legal against public workers and unions who fight for bennies when the rest are without. Like these days.

My pimp hand is extra strong these daysFor the public sector to demand raises, or even stable pay in the face of an economy that is shrinking, is ludicrous and nonsensical, AT BEST!

[SoonerKnight]

Even the govenor of WI did not try and mess with the cops or fire fighters!! He knew better!!

[GrapevineSooner]

In my wife's hometown of Janesville, WI the learning- support teachers, program-support teachers, library media specialists, reading and writing specialists and guidance counselors are getting their layoff notices.


How's that for promised job creation?


5-0

You mean the ones that were recalled (http://www.wjfw.com/stories.html?sku=20110311143116)?


WAUSAU - Governor Scott Walker promises to take back layoff notices for union members after the Assembly passes the Senate's new Budget Bill Thursday afternoon.

Last Friday, Unions throughout Wisconsin were sent layoff notices. Now, Governor Scott Walker is changing course.

Governor Scott Walker says, "Once the bill gets to me and I'm able to sign it, we'll send out notices to those Unions that we noticed last Friday, that we have no need to go forward with the process of layoffs."

[hawaii 5-0]

This is the Recall I'm watching:


http://www.recallscottwalker.info/#axzz1H6D45VLe



Here's the paper article from Janesville. No mention of a Walker job recall...

http://gazettextra.com/news/2011/mar/19/more-janesville-teacher-cuts-detailed/


Looks like Gov. Walker isn't laying anyone off. He's just cutting the funding to school districts so THEY have to lay off teachers. That Pontius Pilate Thing.


5-0

[soonercruiser]

Smart Guy, Scottie!
Kinda like the POTUS not wanting to lead (like a President should) on cutting entitlements.
He rather blame the Repugs and demonize them during the coming election.

[SCOUT]

Looks like Gov. Walker isn't laying anyone off. He's just cutting the funding to school districts so THEY have to lay off teachers. That Pontius Pilate Thing.

5-0

Do you think a Governor is the best person to determine which teachers should be laid off? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who is closer to the actual goings on to make that kind of determination?

Seriously, do you think the CEO of GM is saying, Bill the torque wrench operator should be laid off instead of Ron the hubcap assembler.

[hawaii 5-0]

Do you think a Governor is the best person to determine which teachers should be laid off? Wouldn't it make more sense for someone who is closer to the actual goings on to make that kind of determination?

Seriously, do you think the CEO of GM is saying, Bill the torque wrench operator should be laid off instead of Ron the hubcap assembler.


Then why is Gov. Walker portrayed by some as rescinding the layoffs when the teachers (and other state workers) will still be getting laid off?

The end result is the same and Walker's to blame.


The clock is ticking for some of the Wisky Republican legislators.


5-0

[47straight]

The end result is the same and Walker's to blame.


No he's not.



The clock is ticking for some of the Wisky Republican legislators.


No it's not.

[Midtowner]

The liberals there have been saying that people gave their lives to establish the collective bargaining tool. Really?!

This is true. Just a little time spent with Google could educate you.

[GrapevineSooner]

Then why is Gov. Walker portrayed by some as rescinding the layoffs when the teachers (and other state workers) will still be getting laid off?

The end result is the same and Walker's to blame.


The clock is ticking for some of the Wisky Republican legislators.


5-0

Is the $2.2 billion budget deficit he inherited his fault as well?

As for the second question, only time and the will of the people in Wisconsin will tell. Perhaps they're fired up about collective bargaining rights being rescinded.

Or perhaps all these pols were elected in November with the charge of balancing the budget with the understanding that some painful decisions would have to be made in order to balance the budget.

[hawaii 5-0]

I don't blame Walker for the inherited budget.

I blame him for the underhanded way he's going about balancing it by catering to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. Oh, and the corporate fat cats he gave the nice tax break to.

Did Walker campaign on breaking the unions? Were the voters of Wisconsin deceived?

Everyone paying equally? Hardly.


5-0

[SoonerNate]

I don't blame Walker for the inherited budget.

I blame him for the underhanded way he's going about balancing it by catering to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. Oh, and the corporate fat cats he gave the nice tax break to.

Did Walker campaign on breaking the unions? Were the voters of Wisconsin deceived?

Everyone paying equally? Hardly.


5-0

All the Olberman style talking points. I'll give you credit for that. This has to be a troll job.

[MamaMia]

I don't blame Walker for the inherited budget.

I blame him for the underhanded way he's going about balancing it by catering to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. Oh, and the corporate fat cats he gave the nice tax break to.

Did Walker campaign on breaking the unions? Were the voters of Wisconsin deceived?

Everyone paying equally? Hardly.


5-0"Corporate fat cats"...Koch brothers"...Karl Rove?" Quite simply, Walker was a part of putting together some business tax breaks to encourage business in Wisconsin. They provide jobs, so thats a good thing. He campaigned on doing just that. He also campaigned on budget reform. You cant reform the budget, and save jobs without making cuts.

So some of those cuts are going to be union oriented in that the union workers are going to have to throw in a bit more more coin for their own pensions and health care. So what? They still pay MUCH less than the non union workers in the private sector have to pay for their own, and union workers make more money in comparison to the people who's tits they're sucking.

Hopefully, Hawaii will be next with the high percentage of union they have there.

[Mongo]

I don't blame Walker for the inherited budget.

I blame him for the underhanded way he's going about balancing it by catering to the Koch brothers and Karl Rove. Oh, and the corporate fat cats he gave the nice tax break to.

Did Walker campaign on breaking the unions? Were the voters of Wisconsin deceived?

Everyone paying equally? Hardly.


5-0

how about this: you hang ten in paradise, and let butter burger eating over weight midwesterners deal with their state's rights

[hawaii 5-0]

how about this: you hang ten in paradise, and let butter burger eating over weight midwesterners deal with their state's rights



I'm a Sooner, born and bred. I happen to live in Hawaii.

My wife is from Wisconsin and I have relatives there who are teachers, both working and retired. I stay in contact with them and am well aware of the happenings in the Midwest, especially in Wisconsin. Maybe I know too much. Some co-workers of theirs are pretty pizzed off. What's happening is the State workers are losing their rights in the faux pretext of balancing the budget in Wisconsin. This argument is about doing away with workers' right to collective bargaining. The unions already agreed to the pay cuts and cuts in benefits.

Tens of tousands of protesters in Wisconsin are dealing with their state's rights now as recall petitions are being signed. We'll see where that road goes.

I'll be up there in May to see firsthand how much outrage is going on.


5-0

[MamaMia]

I call BS on the union workers being ticked off over bargaining rights. Bargaining rights or not, they ain't getting anything else anyway. The state is broke on its ***. Its about the money. Its always about the money. They're using this "We don't have any bargaining rights, so poor me" crap as an excuse to attack Walker for pinching their pocket books. :D

At first they were bitching about Walker taking their money until they realized the whole nation thought they were a bunch of spoiled whiners. Then they switched their complaint to it being about the bargaining rights.

[hawaii 5-0]

I call BS on the union workers being ticked off over bargaining rights. Bargaining rights or not, they ain't getting anything else anyway. The state is broke on its ***. Its about the money. Its always about the money. They're using this "We don't have any bargaining rights, so poor me" crap as an excuse to attack Walker for pinching their pocket books. :D

At first they were bitching about Walker taking their money until they realized the whole nation thought they were a bunch of spoiled whiners. Then they switched their complaint to it being about the bargaining rights.



You can call BS until you're blue in the face if ya want. Tell it to the firefighters and policemen who were exempt from the union busting shenanigans but were still out there protesting with the tens of thousands of other workers. They had no dog in the fight but still showed up along with thousands of others who weren't in a union but still saw the shameful scalawag tactics of Walker for what it was.

Hell, even Walker and majority leader Fitzgerald admitted it wasn't about the money. They were caught bragging about it.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Here's little tidbit about Teachers and the pay they get. Sure it's biased......it's from Move-On.org Still it's entertaining to see the guy get worked up.


http://front.moveon.org/the-most-aggressive-defense-of-teachers-youll-hear-this-year/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d86822ca28c46e1%2C4


5-0

[GKeeper316]

"Corporate fat cats"...Koch brothers"...Karl Rove?" Quite simply, Walker was a part of putting together some business tax breaks to encourage business in Wisconsin. They provide jobs, so thats a good thing. He campaigned on doing just that. He also campaigned on budget reform. You cant reform the budget, and save jobs without making cuts.

So some of those cuts are going to be union oriented in that the union workers are going to have to throw in a bit more more coin for their own pensions and health care. So what? They still pay MUCH less than the non union workers in the private sector have to pay for their own, and union workers make more money in comparison to the people who's tits they're sucking.

Hopefully, Hawaii will be next with the high percentage of union they have there.

i'd like to see how many jobs are actually created by corporate tax breaks...

i understand the theory, i just believe the guys that end up with the tax breaks pocket the cash instead of putting it into growing their business. because any economist will tell you business doesn't grow just because. business grows when there's an increased demand for their goods and services. unfortunately, there is no increased demand and they arent going to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs.

[MamaMia]

You can call BS until you're blue in the face if ya want. Tell it to the firefighters and policemen who were exempt from the union busting shenanigans but were still out there protesting with the tens of thousands of other workers. They had no dog in the fight but still showed up along with thousands of others who weren't in a union but still saw the shameful scalawag tactics of Walker for what it was.

Hell, even Walker and majority leader Fitzgerald admitted it wasn't about the money. They were caught bragging about it.


5-0 Cops and firefighters joined in the whine fest? What a shocker. :rolleyes: All that proves is something we already know, which is that the highly paid bloodsucking union bosses are real good at pumping union people up. All they have to do is stand on their soapbox and spew a bunch of entitlement union crap and we got ourselves a protest folks. They can protest until the cows come home but its stillnot going to change the fact that the state is too broke to keep giving out so many over the top goodies to union workers.

Walker should have taken everyones bargaining rights away and passed Right To Work while the democrat yellow belly sore losers, also known as the Wisconsin 14 were sipping mojitos in Indiana.

Now about your last sentence... Walker never said it was NOT about the money. Thats just a twisted lie. Fitzgerald did say that the destruction of unions will make it “much more difficult” for President Obama to win reelection in Wisconsin. I suppose thats what you're referring to. I don't know if what Fitzgerald says is true but I do know that as long as the unions cant automatically collect union dues from union workers who don't want to pay them, thats less money going into democrats campaigns.

It would be okay by me, if Walker would just fire the whole lot of them.

[MamaMia]

i'd like to see how many jobs are actually created by corporate tax breaks...

i understand the theory, i just believe the guys that end up with the tax breaks pocket the cash instead of putting into growing their business. because any economist will tell you business doesn't grow just because. business grown when there's an increased demand for their goods and services. unfortunately, there is no increased demand and they arent going to create jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. Many business owners have been hesitant to hire people because they don't trust Obama to be 'business friendly.' They don't want to pocket the cash. They're smart enough to know that expanding your workforce is usually a sound investment, but business has been anything but 'usual' since he moved into the White House. Purchasing products and services is at a low because Obama is scaring the daylights out of the people who hire services and spend money. People are getting by with less. Since Obama made the correct decision in allowing the Bush business cuts to stand, business owners as a whole have opened hiring up to some degree, but they're still very leery at the moment to do much of anything in the way of investing in and expanding their companies, until hes out of there and this ongoing government spending on steroids that both the Dem's and the Reps are responsible for, is under control once and for all. The people are fed up with politicians and if changes aren't made, they wont be getting reelected.

[GKeeper316]

Many business owners have been hesitant to hire people because they don't trust Obama to be 'business friendly.' They don't want to pocket the cash. They're smart enough to know that expanding your workforce is usually a sound investment, but business has been anything but 'usual' since he moved into the White House. Purchasing products and services is at a low because Obama is scaring the daylights out of the people who hire services and spend money. People are getting by with less. Since Obama made the correct decision in allowing the Bush business cuts to stand, business owners as a whole have opened hiring up to some degree, but they're still very leery at the moment to do much of anything in the way of investing in and expanding their companies, until hes out of there and this ongoing government spending on steroids that both the Dem's and the Reps are responsible for, is under control once and for all. The people are fed up with politicians and if changes aren't made, they wont be getting reelected.

i think blaming the president for everything is a bit short sighted. this was happening long before he was elected, and while he has been nothing but reactionary in the face of recession, you cant really blame him for not being proactive. its a lose/lose for him right now. if he tries to do anything, the pubs will oppose it, especially if it might work, because it would gain him a political advantage. if he does nothing the pubs can use that to their own political advantage. i think he wants to do what he thinks is right, but wont because congress will just burn him anyway.

there's too many people in washington looking out for themselves, and not their respective constituancies. meanwhile, the unions are trying to protect their members and businesses are trying to protect their profits in the wake of across the board declines in the purchasing power of the working class. something has to give, but the working class cant afford to give any ground. seems to me the ones who actually can afford to give ground won't out of sheer spite.

it would be a whole lot better if someone would explain to the 400 richest guys in america that as long as they hold on to more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans, the bottom 150 million cant afford to purchase non essential goods and services, creating a stagnant economic environment. its just a mess from the top down, and it was this way before obama took office.

[GKeeper316]

i honestly wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't even bother trying to get re-elected. congress wont allow him to do anything anyway. put a pub in there and watch it get worse.

[MamaMia]

i think blaming the president for everything is a bit short sighted. this was happening long before he was elected, and while he has been nothing but reactionary in the face of recession, you cant really blame him for not being proactive. its a lose/lose for him right now. if he tries to do anything, the pubs will oppose it, especially if it might work, because it would gain him a political advantage. if he does nothing the pubs can use that to their own political advantage. i think he wants to do what he thinks is right, but wont because congress will just burn him anyway.

there's too many people in washington looking out for themselves, and not their respective constituancies. meanwhile, the unions are trying to protect their members and businesses are trying to protect their profits in the wake of across the board declines in the purchasing power of the working class. something has to give, but the working class cant afford to give any ground. seems to me the ones who actually can afford to give ground won't out of sheer spite.

it would be a whole lot better if someone would explain to the 400 richest guys in america that as long as they hold on to more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans, the bottom 150 million cant afford to purchase non essential goods and services, creating a stagnant economic environment. its just a mess from the top down, and it was this way before obama took office.I don't believe you comprehended a word I said.

[sappstuf]

You can call BS until you're blue in the face if ya want. Tell it to the firefighters and policemen who were exempt from the union busting shenanigans but were still out there protesting with the tens of thousands of other workers. They had no dog in the fight but still showed up along with thousands of others who weren't in a union but still saw the shameful scalawag tactics of Walker for what it was.

Hell, even Walker and majority leader Fitzgerald admitted it wasn't about the money. They were caught bragging about it.


5-0

For the unions and the Dems it is ALL about the money. And I don't mean the union members paychecks..

Look who the top political donors are and who they give their money to.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

That is what the Dems and unions are fighting for. Keep the money flowing...

[C&CDean]

I don't believe you comprehended a word I said.

And you're surprised?

[Mongo]

I'm a Sooner, born and bred. I happen to live in Hawaii.

My wife is from Wisconsin and I have relatives there who are teachers, both working and retired. I stay in contact with them and am well aware of the happenings in the Midwest, especially in Wisconsin. Maybe I know too much. Some co-workers of theirs are pretty pizzed off. What's happening is the State workers are losing their rights in the faux pretext of balancing the budget in Wisconsin. This argument is about doing away with workers' right to collective bargaining. The unions already agreed to the pay cuts and cuts in benefits.

Tens of tousands of protesters in Wisconsin are dealing with their state's rights now as recall petitions are being signed. We'll see where that road goes.

I'll be up there in May to see firsthand how much outrage is going on.


5-0


Faux(my god people, quit using this term. Gay porn is less gay than this term.) pretext? What you, your relatives, and unionites fail to realize part of the budget IS public workers' salaries and bennies. It is the same as fixing a highway. If there is no money to fill in potholes on a ****hole road, there is no fixing. No money to pay PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, then there are lay offs and bennie cuttings.

Save your rage for hawaii, where you live, where you pay tax money. Quit bitching about wiskyians who elected these union haters and budget responsible minded officials

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Faux(my god people, quit using this term. Gay porn is less gay than this term.) pretext? What you, your relatives, and unionites fail to realize part of the budget IS public workers' salaries and bennies. It is the same as fixing a highway. If there is no money to fill in potholes on a ****hole road, there is no fixing. No money to pay PUBLIC SERVANTS WITH TAXPAYER DOLLARS, then there are lay offs and bennie cuttings.

Save your rage for hawaii, where you live, where you pay tax money. Quit bitching about wiskyians who elected these union haters and budget responsible minded officialsHe's part of the workers-of-the-world-unite program. The time is NOW!

[Mongo]

He's part of the workers-of-the-world-unite program. The time is NOW!

Please dont agree with me. You make me look bad

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Please dont agree with me. You make me look badWhy would you think I would/could/should disagree with what you said here? haven't you read my political posts in the past? Lotsa folks around here continue to cut the democrats some slack. Even in the face of what's going on in America.

[Sooner5030]

What's happening is the State workers are losing their rights in the faux pretext of balancing the budget in Wisconsin.

you mean the rights to prohibit one party of the labor transaction from replacing you when you don't show up to work? The "rights" are tilted in favor of unions and when the rest of us are given a choice of where to park our capital we look for non-union locations.

[Mongo]

Why would you think I would/could/should disagree with what you said here? haven't you read my political posts in the past? Lotsa folks around here continue to cut the democrats some slack. Even in the face of what's going on in America.

When you stop cutting republicans slack, your opinion will be valid to me. One side is no better than the other.

[Veritas]

When you stop cutting republicans slack, your opinion will be valid to me. One side is no better than the other.
Well that's not true. Republicans are better than Democrats, but that's like saying diarrhea is better than constipation. Either way **** isn't working right.

[Mongo]

My cornhole gets raw with the trots, but only splits once with constipation.

Bad reference, I will take constipation any day, or once a week, over the ****s

[Fugue]

I've changed my opinion on this over time. Now I just want to blow it all out and be done with it. :gary:

[Mongo]

I've changed my opinion on this over time. Now I just want to blow it all out and be done with it. :gary:

You want to blow cornholes?

Nasty

[Fugue]

yes, the technique is know as the "TizwoH"

[MamaMia]

My cornhole gets raw with the trots, but only splits once with constipation.

Bad reference, I will take constipation any day, or once a week, over the ****s
Well that's not true. Republicans are better than Democrats, but that's like saying diarrhea is better than constipation. Either way **** isn't working right.

Its quite obvious that the Republicans are constipation and the Dem's are diarrhea, but at least the Republicans know they're in trouble with the voters and most are trying to do something about it, which is more than I can say for the Dems. The are in complete denial and on a spending spree that we, as a society can not afford.

“You cannot spend your way out of recession nor borrow your way out of debt.” ~Daniel Hannan

[GKeeper316]

I don't believe you comprehended a word I said.

of course i did.

you're wrong.

its not the presidents fault that business doesnt want to expand. its business' fault business doesnt want to expand.

[pphilfran]

of course i did.

you're wrong.

its not the presidents fault that business doesnt want to expand. its business' fault business doesnt want to expand.

You don't actually believe that do you?

If there is no additional business to be had....or you already have excess capacity due to the past recession...it is big businesses fault they are not building and hiring?

[GKeeper316]

You don't actually believe that do you?

If there is no additional business to be had....or you already have excess capacity due to the past recession...it is big businesses fault they are not building and hiring?

i fail to see how its the presidents fault...

[soonercruiser]

My cornhole gets raw with the trots, but only splits once with constipation.

Bad reference, I will take constipation any day, or once a week, over the ****s

BINGO!
One wish down; two to go!
:D

[soonercruiser]

i fail to see how its the presidents fault...

Wasted $800 Billion skimulus = more debt!

[Mongo]

Wasted $800 Billion skimulus = more debt!

He's a turd, but the guy before him overspent a ****load too. Give up the side choosing, it makes the anal raping both sides perform more palatable

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

When you stop cutting republicans slack, your opinion will be valid to me. One side is no better than the other.Since when have I ever said the repubs are anywhere near perfect? You are simply wrong on your assertions, including the one that said one side is no better than the other.

[Mongo]

Since when have I ever said the repubs are anywhere near perfect? You are simply wrong on your assertions, including the one that said one side is no better than the other.

You are fist ****ing me, right?

Link me one, just one thread you have started that calls out "pubs". I dare you. Link three and I will pay for one of the "libs" here to blow you.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You are fist ****ing me, right?

Link me one, just one thread you have started that calls out "pubs". I dare you. Link three and I will pay for one of the "libs" here to blow you.Here's one. W was wrong to have gone along with the policies of the left, in regards to social spending on education. He shouldn't have had the TARP spending to bailout businesses. Other issues? sure.

I may have not started hit threads on the repubs, but when they have done things I disagree with, I have said so. As I said, the republicans are far from perfect. Unfortunately, the democrats are on the wrong side of almost everything, and I do believe you agree with that, even though it's fashionable here to dis me.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

My desk has a dent in it from banging my head on it. Apparently that's a side effect of being anally raped. Anyway, onto the rant.

For the last time, collective bargaining is not a bad thing. Collective bargaining is not the reserved bailiwick for mouthbreathing gangsters and communist thugs. Collective bargaining is not the face of the devil that rapes your pocketbook and steals bread from your children. Collective bargaining is the power that comes from standing with your fellow citizen to speak your mind and establish what you as a group of workers want from your employer.

And yes Wisconsin, it IS a right. Just like the ability to refuse membership is a right, hence the proliferation of Right-to-Work.

I present to you the I Amendment where the freedom of speech and the right to assemble has been interpreted in multiple instances to extend to a freedom of association. That freedom is assisted in its definition by NAACP v. State of Alabama which is then reinforced by our beloved XIV Amendment.

Hate the excessive benefits. Hate the union goon squads. But DON'T hate unions as a whole because there's a number of them that are doing it RIGHT. Being good stewards of their respective companies and municipalities. DON'T hate public sector benefits such as pension plans as a whole because there's a volume of them that are maintained and funded in the majority by their membership and used as a wage offset to reduce the financial impact of competitive wages from those respective companies and municipalities.

Instead, hate what's wrong. It's not collective bargaining. It's not the ability for workers to come together with their employer to work toward a happier, better compensated workforce, therefore a more productive workforce. It's not the worker. It's unrealistic retirement packages and zero worker contribution healthcare benefits (none of which exist in the great state of Oklahoma). It's legislators who pirate the funds (state, local AND membership contributions!) and detonate vested percentages, then act shocked and cry for reform when those systems are "underfunded".

It's not the membership. It's not the retiring firefighter who walks away from service joining a group of retirees that are 62% dead or disabled as per the 2010 actuary report. It's Wisconsin's problem. Quit bringing it home. Quit buying the bullsh*t.

[soonercruiser]

He's a turd, but the guy before him overspent a ****load too. Give up the side choosing, it makes the anal raping both sides perform more palatable

"Change" isn't supposed to hurt!

[soonercruiser]

You are fist ****ing me, right?

Link me one, just one thread you have started that calls out "pubs". I dare you. Link three and I will pay for one of the "libs" here to blow you.

Both Rush and I have agreed with "anti-" Repug posts from time to time, and it isn't our job to replay all the posts or improve anyones' memory.
And, we don't have to start a negative thread to show we dislike some of the **** they do too.

[Mongo]

Say what you want, but I am not offering a lib beej for you

[MamaMia]

of course i did.

you're wrong.

its not the presidents fault that business doesnt want to expand. its business' fault business doesnt want to expand. That doesn't make any sense.

[pphilfran]

i fail to see how its the presidents fault...

So the blame automatically falls to business?

What could have caused the recession?

1. Greedy bankers that stretched the limits of common sense?
2. New home purchasers that bought too much home and couldn't afford the payments?
3. Falsified credit reports?
4. Loose financial legislation and warnings that were ignored?
5. Cheep money from the fed that drove up housing prices to unsustainable levels?
6. Fannie and Freddie buying up the questionable loan packages without proper review of what they were buying?
7. Undecided tax policy that does leaves business in limbo waiting to see future implications of the tax code?
8. Poor, inadequate auditing systems? There were warnings about Madoff that were ignored and no audits were scheduled or completed. The fed has proven their audit systems stink...gulf oil spill had little auditing of systems...even looks like they looked the other way...less than 1/2 of 1 percent of business is audited each year for illegal workers...
9. Energy policy that is inconsistent from year to year that does not allow oil companies the ability to plan long term causing crude prices to fluctuate wildly?
10. All of the above....

[okie52]

So the blame automatically falls to business?

What could have caused the recession?

1. Greedy bankers that stretched the limits of common sense?
2. New home purchasers that bought too much home and couldn't afford the payments?
3. Falsified credit reports?
4. Loose financial legislation and warnings that were ignored?
5. Cheep money from the fed that drove up housing prices to unsustainable levels?
6. Fannie and Freddie buying up the questionable loan packages without proper review of what they were buying?
7. Undecided tax policy that does leaves business in limbo waiting to see future implications of the tax code?
8. Poor, inadequate auditing systems? There were warnings about Madoff that were ignored and no audits were scheduled or completed. The fed has proven their audit systems stink...gulf oil spill had little auditing of systems...even looks like they looked the other way...less than 1/2 of 1 percent of business is audited each year for illegal workers...
9. Energy policy that is inconsistent from year to year that does not allow oil companies the ability to plan long term causing crude prices to fluctuate wildly?
10. All of the above....

Bravo Phil-and lets not forget the government still hasn't passed its own budget.

[Midtowner]

So the blame automatically falls to business?

What could have caused the recession?

1. Greedy bankers that stretched the limits of common sense?
2. New home purchasers that bought too much home and couldn't afford the payments?
3. Falsified credit reports?
4. Loose financial legislation and warnings that were ignored?
5. Cheep money from the fed that drove up housing prices to unsustainable levels?
6. Fannie and Freddie buying up the questionable loan packages without proper review of what they were buying?
7. Undecided tax policy that does leaves business in limbo waiting to see future implications of the tax code?
8. Poor, inadequate auditing systems? There were warnings about Madoff that were ignored and no audits were scheduled or completed. The fed has proven their audit systems stink...gulf oil spill had little auditing of systems...even looks like they looked the other way...less than 1/2 of 1 percent of business is audited each year for illegal workers...
9. Energy policy that is inconsistent from year to year that does not allow oil companies the ability to plan long term causing crude prices to fluctuate wildly?
10. All of the above....

As to 1-6 and 8, both parties are bought and paid for and won't touch those things.

As to 7, both parties are bought and paid for by their various constituencies. Pick your poison, the Republicans and Democrats are about rewarding special interests or the lazy and screwing the middle class.

As to 9, Republicans want there to be no EPA, a laissez-faire system, which has historically proven to not only be a bad idea, but to cause things like burning rivers and towns where the children have unsafely high levels of lead in their bodies. Democrats, on the other hand, are too beholden to unions and environmental groups to be willing to strike a balance between stewardship of the environment and a sound energy policy.

10... yes.

Good list. Those of you who think voting Republican or Democrat are the reason we're in this mess. Start voting for the best person, not just your team.

[SoonerKnight]

Its quite obvious that the Republicans are constipation and the Dem's are diarrhea, but at least the Republicans know they're in trouble with the voters and most are trying to do something about it, which is more than I can say for the Dems. The are in complete denial and on a spending spree that we, as a society can not afford.

“You cannot spend your way out of recession nor borrow your way out of debt.” ~Daniel Hannan

Really? GWB was not on a spending spree and a Republican congress for 6 years!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Really? GWB was not on a spending spree and a Republican congress for 6 years!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

I guess that the real numbers would show that it would be 3 times cheaper for the federal government to have kept Boooosh!
:rolleyes:

Question: ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE 3 YEARS AGO????

[MamaMia]

Really? GWB was not on a spending spree and a Republican congress for 6 years!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

I made myself very clear in blaming both parties, however the Dem's have gone nuts with the useless spending, much more so than the Republicans. The numbers dont lie. The repercussions the stimulus package will have on taxes is uncertain. Then theres the fact that health insurance has skyrocketed because they know with Obamacare, they're going to get hit hard.

Dem's and the Reps are to blame for overspending. Bush gave the first bailout too. Obama, however took it to a whole new level with the ongoing bailouts, the pork on steroids, printing money and borrowing from China. He was signing bills nobody read. Our President lost control of his senses. He gave business owners many reasons to panic. His charm got him elected but his lack of business sense is scary.

[badger]

I really feel bad for Wisconsin and other states that are in deep fiscal crisis mode right now... but then I remember that my home state, like others, have had years of enjoying good educational systems, decent roads and great state parks systems and other benefits of their high taxes. Oklahoma's not in the deepest of financial difficulties, but they also never had highly ranked public education programs, pristine roads and bridges or other tax money benefits that other states did.

States like Wisconsin, which I love dear, have gotten a lot for their tax money for years, while even taxes were high, they almost got more than their money's worth in return. Alas, the population's shifting southbound, the tax money's not there to buy brand new police cars and school auditoriums anymore and declining federal caucus representation means you can't rely on pork to make up the difference.

It is moments like these if I wonder if... what's that phrase from the Civil War? The South will rise again? Yeah... We are getting people moving to where the tax burden isn't as bad, where the weather is more bearable with shorter winters and air conditioning in the summers, and there's tons of job growth.

This moment in history is an opportunity - either for northern states like Wisconsin to right the ship and be as great as they always have been, or for southern states like Oklahoma to grasp this chance to draw the people and the businesses that northern states are pushing away with bad policies.

I am currently living in Oklahoma, so I am kind of rooting for us to rise up in the state rankings in some of our more embarrassing categories... but at the same time, it would be sad to see my once proud birth state Wisky to fail at this challenging time.

[soonercruiser]

That doesn't make any sense.

Of course it doesn't make any sense!

Picture this...
You are the owner of a business sitting on the fence, barely getting by on all the existing government mandates on employers. Deep down you'd like to take a chance and expand. Who would you rather listen to on the TV for encouragement?
Ronnie Reagan; or BHO?
Bingo!

[SoonerKnight]

I guess that the real numbers would show that it would be 3 times cheaper for the federal government to have kept Boooosh!
:rolleyes:

Question: ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE 3 YEARS AGO????

Really that bail out shat was signed by Bush!! :rolleyes:

[SoonerKnight]

Of course it doesn't make any sense!

Picture this...
You are the owner of a business sitting on the fence, barely getting by on all the existing government mandates on employers. Deep down you'd like to take a chance and expand. Who would you rather listen to on the TV for encouragement?
Ronnie Reagan; or BHO?
Bingo!

Well BHO cuz Ronnie is dead!!:eek:

[SoonerKnight]

I made myself very clear in blaming both parties, however the Dem's have gone nuts with the useless spending, much more so than the Republicans. The numbers dont lie. The repercussions the stimulus package will have on taxes is uncertain. Then theres the fact that health insurance has skyrocketed because they know with Obamacare, they're going to get hit hard.


President Bush signed into law Friday a historic $700 billion bailout of the financial services industry, promising to move swiftly to use his sweeping new authority to unlock frozen credit markets to get the economy moving again.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26987291/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Dem's and the Reps are to blame for overspending. Bush gave the first bailout too. Obama, however took it to a whole new level with the ongoing bailouts, the pork on steroids, printing money and borrowing from China. He was signing bills nobody read. Our President lost control of his senses. He gave business owners many reasons to panic. His charm got him elected but his lack of business sense is scary.

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.

Economic analysts generally believe the $168 billion package Bush signed will help prevent the current downturn from ballooning into a crisis. But if the rebates don't spur a consumer spending spree strong enough to cure what ails the economy, Congress is ready to throw more money at the problem. Bush said the measure was "large enough to have an impact."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Now Obama's spending is:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.

The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).


So Obama: $767 Billion
Bush: $868 Billion

Whaaaat!! Bush spent more money oh wow I guess Obama is not so out of control!! :rolleyes:

[texaspokieokie]

I guess that the real numbers would show that it would be 3 times cheaper for the federal government to have kept Boooosh!
:rolleyes:

Question: ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THAN YOU WERE 3 YEARS AGO????

NOOOOO, i'm 3 yrs older !!!!!

[pphilfran]

You can't really compare the two...different times with different problems...

I do know that Obama is spending money like a teenage girl in the mall with an unlimited credit card...about a trillion a year more than Boosh...

His has spent, and projects to spend...

2009 3.51 trillion
2010 3.45
2011 3.81
2012 3.72

Boosh
2005 2.47
2006 2.65
2007 2.72
2008 2.98

[Midtowner]

Ronnie Reagan; or BHO?
Bingo!

Neither? The federal government doesn't have a huge effect on most small businesses. And taxes have gone down since the 1980s. If you have a good idea, manage to run your company right, and are lucky enough not to have employees stealing from you, you're probably going to be okay.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Neither? The federal government doesn't have a huge effect on most small businesses. And taxes have gone down since the 1980s. If you have a good idea, manage to run your company right, and are lucky enough not to have employees stealing from you, you're probably going to be okay.POP that head outa the sand, and take a MUCH closer look at what is going on in our country, and the world....plskthnx

[MamaMia]

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.

Economic analysts generally believe the $168 billion package Bush signed will help prevent the current downturn from ballooning into a crisis. But if the rebates don't spur a consumer spending spree strong enough to cure what ails the economy, Congress is ready to throw more money at the problem. Bush said the measure was "large enough to have an impact."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23143814/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/

Now Obama's spending is:

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, abbreviated ARRA (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009.

The measures are nominally worth $787 billion. The Act includes federal tax incentives, expansion of unemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions, and domestic spending in education, health care, and infrastructure, including the energy sector. The Act also includes numerous non-economic recovery related items that were either part of longer-term plans (e.g. a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) or desired by Congress (e.g. a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).


So Obama: $767 Billion
Bush: $868 Billion

Whaaaat!! Bush spent more money oh wow I guess Obama is not so out of control!! :rolleyes:

I cant have a mature debate with someone who has the nerve to misquote people and then lies about the facts, or fails to do at least a 6th grade level research before he opens his ignorant mouth. Your figures are partial and twisted at best. How can you not know that? I don't know if you realize that, and you just want to throw FULL facts and intelligence out the window, or if you're so damned stupid that you actually believe what you say.

[C&CDean]

I cant have a mature debate with someone who has the nerve to misquote people and then lies about the facts, or fails to do at least a 6th grade level research before he opens his ignorant mouth. Your figures are partial and twisted at best. How can you not know that? I don't know if you realize that, and you just want to throw FULL facts and intelligence out the window, or if you're so damned stupid that you actually believe what you say.

Correct answer? All of the above.

[Midtowner]

POP that head outa the sand, and take a MUCH closer look at what is going on in our country, and the world....plskthnx

Well how can I argue with pablum like that?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well how can I argue with pablum like that?Good. Then, do it, and you won't want to argue.

[SoonerKnight]

I cant have a mature debate with someone who has the nerve to misquote people and then lies about the facts, or fails to do at least a 6th grade level research before he opens his ignorant mouth. Your figures are partial and twisted at best. How can you not know that? I don't know if you realize that, and you just want to throw FULL facts and intelligence out the window, or if you're so damned stupid that you actually believe what you say.

Sorry you feel that way! I was simply responding to that part of your response and highlighted as such! If you feel that I am wrong prove it! Otherwise stop stating your opinion as fact! The fact is the Republicans have out spent Obama because they were in power for 6 years with control of both houses and the WH for 8 years. GWB had a surplus when he took over and within 5 months we had a defecit. That was before 9/11. That is a fact! He also chose to invade a country for no reason whatever. He ran 2 wars and made no effort to pay for the wars. Those debts collected and now it's easy to blame Obama but hey whatever! I love how conservatives always go to insults when they have no facts to respond back with!

[pphilfran]

Sorry you feel that way! I was simply responding to that part of your response and highlighted as such! If you feel that I am wrong prove it! Otherwise stop stating your opinion as fact! The fact is the Republicans have out spent Obama because they were in powere of both houses and the WH. GWB had a surplus when he took over and withing 5 months we had a defecit. That was before 9/11. That is a fact! He also chose to invade a country for no reason whatever. He ran 2 wars and made no effort to pay for the wars. Those debts collected and now it's easy to blame Obama but hey whatever! I love how conservatives always go to insults when they have no facts to respond back with!

Again, Obama has outspent him by a trillion a year...

Clinton balanced the budget on the back of cap gains..

He was in the plus by 2 billion in 99
86 billion in 2000
Back in the hole by 32 billion in 2001

[SoonerKnight]

Again, Obama has outspent him by a trillion a year...

Clinton balanced the budget on the back of cap gains..

He was in the plus by 2 billion in 99
86 billion in 2000
Back in the hole by 32 billion in 2001

Bush was Pres in 2001!

[SoonerKnight]

Again, Obama has outspent him by a trillion a year...

Clinton balanced the budget on the back of cap gains..

He was in the plus by 2 billion in 99
86 billion in 2000
Back in the hole by 32 billion in 2001

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[51] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[52]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (”overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%). CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article states that "President Obama’s agenda ... is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits", but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[48] Presidents have no Constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money, as this responsibility resides with the Congress, although a President's priorities influence Congressional action.[49]

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010-2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[50]


Don't let facts get in the way! :rolleyes:

[sappstuf]

Don't let facts get in the way! :rolleyes:

I'm not here to defend phil, because phil can defend himself.

However... You really should not cut and past from Wikipedia and try to lecture someone on facts. That page needs serious updates and most of the stuff you pasted was 1.5 years old and if you read it closely it says stuff like:


The New York Times analyzed this

That does not make it fact.

Even the CBO number sometime have to be taken with a grain of salt. Like, for example, when the Dems continued to game the system until they got the cost amount they wanted on healthcare. The cost the CBO gave back were bogus, but they had no choice but to give bogus numbers because that is the way it is set up. But when looking about budgets, and when given fair numbers the CBO is a pretty good resource.

But lets look at what the CBO said last week instead of almost 2 years ago when talking about Obama's 2012 budget. You can find the report here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf).

I like this passage that you can find at the bottom of page 4.


Compared with the Administration’s estimates, CBO’s estimates of the deficit under the President’s budget are lower for 2011 (by $220 billion) but higher for each year thereafter (by a total of $2.3 trillion over the 2012–2021 period).

Do you understand what they are saying? Their analysis is that we will spend $2 trillion more than what the Obama administration says. Personally, I don't think a $2 trillion mistake is even possible. Somebody is trying to game something. I believe it is the Obama administration and not the non-partisan CBO.

That is an opinion based on the current facts that we know.

[SoonerKnight]

I'm not here to defend phil, because phil can defend himself.

However... You really should not cut and past from Wikipedia and try to lecture someone on facts. That page needs serious updates and most of the stuff you pasted was 1.5 years old and if you read it closely it says stuff like:



That does not make it fact.

Even the CBO number sometime have to be taken with a grain of salt. Like, for example, when the Dems continued to game the system until they got the cost amount they wanted on healthcare. The cost the CBO gave back were bogus, but they had no choice but to give bogus numbers because that is the way it is set up. But when looking about budgets, and when given fair numbers the CBO is a pretty good resource.

But lets look at what the CBO said last week instead of almost 2 years ago when talking about Obama's 2012 budget. You can find the report here (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12103/2011-03-18-APB-PreliminaryReport.pdf).

I like this passage that you can find at the bottom of page 4.



Do you understand what they are saying? Their analysis is that we will spend $2 trillion more than what the Obama administration says. Personally, I don't think a $2 trillion mistake is even possible. Somebody is trying to game something. I believe it is the Obama administration and not the non-partisan CBO.

That is an opinion based on the current facts that we know.


Wiki is no less relevant than pasting from a damn blog! Also if you notice the Bush admin did not account for the cost of the two wars. Obama admin put the cost in the total bringing the debt higher. Maybe they should have kept those numbers hidden! I agree Obama is spending a lot of money but so did Bush. Obama was handed down a pile of crap and now gets the blame! I could care less I just think that it is unfair to blanket Obama for all of the debt especially since closing loop hole and taxing Billionaires would help close the gap. Also, I have always said you can't have 2 wars and not pay more in taxes. It makes no sense. Of course taxing to pay for the wars makes them unpopular.

Also, when Sec Def. Gates says there are thing from the millitary budget which can be cut I think he should be allowed to cut items he finds unneccesary to help with the budget. When it comes to these proposed cuts I find it hard to believe it will help the economy!

[hawaii 5-0]

Looks like a school yard pizzing contest. Nothing more.


5-0

[soonercruiser]

Again, Obama has outspent him by a trillion a year...

Clinton balanced the budget on the back of cap gains..

He was in the plus by 2 billion in 99
86 billion in 2000
Back in the hole by 32 billion in 2001

Clinton left Boooosh an economy in decline (the last 2 quarters)!

[hawaii 5-0]

Clinton allowed me to save up enough for a down payment for a bit o' paradise and for that I'm grateful.



5-0

[tcrb]

Clinton allowed me to save up enough for a down payment for a bit o' paradise and for that I'm grateful.



5-0

Actually, you should thank Reagan for laying the foundation that sparked the economic growth environment that Slick Willy was merely the beneficiary of.

[Curly Bill]

If not for George Washington we'd all be in a hell of a pickle.

[hawaii 5-0]

In other news actually relating to this thread, about half of the recall petitions are already signed. Soon the people will have a loud voice about the takeover of their state in Wisconsin.


5-0

[SoonerKnight]

Actually, you should thank Reagan for laying the foundation that sparked the economic growth environment that Slick Willy was merely the beneficiary of.

How come the economy was in the ****ter when Clinton took office then? Wasn't GHWB Prez after Reagan? :confused:

[MamaMia]

In other news actually relating to this thread, about half of the recall petitions are already signed. Soon the people will have a loud voice about the takeover of their state in Wisconsin.


5-0

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y86/OUmom/coffee-2.gif Good. Maybe they can borrow some money from China.

[texaspokieokie]

In other news actually relating to this thread, about half of the recall petitions are already signed. Soon the people will have a loud voice about the takeover of their state in Wisconsin.


5-0

the WI people didn't have any "say", voting in the people now in office ?????

[hawaii 5-0]

the WI people didn't have any "say", voting in the people now in office ?????



They were sold a bill of goods.

Ever bought a used car?

How 'bout the term, 'bait and switch' ?


The voters put Walker and his minions in office for fixing the budget. Walker and the other Republicans never campained on abolishing the unions while giving massive tax breaks to rich corporations.



Much like the US Representatives. They campained on abolishing Obamacare and creating jobs. So far all they've done is try to cut funding to National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood.

So much for promised job creation.......


5-0

[GrapevineSooner]

We'll see.

That's the nice thing about democracy. Sometimes you don't have to wait until the next election to hold them to account.

[sappstuf]

Wiki is no less relevant than pasting from a damn blog!

I have never heard of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) referred to as a "damn blog" or that it is the equivalent of Wiki.

But your the obvious expert here....

[texaspokieokie]

They were sold a bill of goods.

Ever bought a used car?

How 'bout the term, 'bait and switch' ?


The voters put Walker and his minions in office for fixing the budget. Walker and the other Republicans never campained on abolishing the unions while giving massive tax breaks to rich corporations.



Much like the US Representatives. They campained on abolishing Obamacare and creating jobs. So far all they've done is try to cut funding to National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood.

So much for promised job creation.......


5-0

kinda like bho did to the whole country. at least, 60 million morons.

[hawaii 5-0]

They're all a bunch o' crooks. I don't remember the last time I saw a truly honest politician.

It's just in this case the voters are gonna do something about it without waiting for the regular election years from now.

Stay tuned........

5-0

[texaspokieokie]

They're all a bunch o' crooks. I don't remember the last time I saw a truly honest politician.

It's just in this case the voters are gonna do something about it without waiting for the regular election years from now.

Stay tuned........

5-0

well, we pretty much agree on that.

[pphilfran]

Bush was Pres in 2001!

Yes...I realize that fact...Bush was basically operating on the Clinton budget the first year....

[soonercruiser]

They were sold a bill of goods.

Ever bought a used car?

How 'bout the term, 'bait and switch' ?


The voters put Walker and his minions in office for fixing the budget. Walker and the other Republicans never campained on abolishing the unions while giving massive tax breaks to rich corporations.



Much like the US Representatives. They campained on abolishing Obamacare and creating jobs. So far all they've done is try to cut funding to National Public Radio and Planned Parenthood.

So much for promised job creation.......


5-0

OK! Any of you Badgers out there gonna correct this post??
Walker campaigned on exactly the actions that he is taking now.
(Unless you have been only watching LW media)
That's why he got elected!
That was his mandate!

[pphilfran]

The CBO reported in October 2009 reasons for the difference between the 2008 and 2009 deficits, which were approximately $460 billion and $1,410 billion, respectively. Key categories of changes included: tax receipt declines of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense - including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[51] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[52]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the Federal government. The four changes were: 1) accounting for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (”overseas military contingencies”) in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations; 2) assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation; 3) accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and 4) anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief. According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear

The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
New policies from President Obama (10%). CBO data is based only on current law, so policy proposals that have yet to be made law are not included in their analysis. The article states that "President Obama’s agenda ... is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits", but that he "...does not have a realistic plan for reducing the deficit..."[48] Presidents have no Constitutional authority to levy taxes or spend money, as this responsibility resides with the Congress, although a President's priorities influence Congressional action.[49]

Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010-2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis.[50]


Don't let facts get in the way! :rolleyes:

Let's see the actual effects on revenue...

1st number is revenue as a % of GDP...Table 1.2

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

2rd number is LTCG revenue as a % of GDP

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=161&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=39

3rd number (red) is total revenue minus LTCG


1990 18.0/1.99/16.01
1991 17.8/1.64/16.16
1992 17.5/1.81/16.69
1993 17.5/2.02/15.48
Top rate changed from 31% to 39.6%...max LTCG from 28.93 to 29.2
1994 18.0/1.99/16.02
1995 18.4/2.15/16.25
1996 18.8/2.99/15.81
LTCG tax rate reduced to 21.2%, max rate
1997 19.2/3.97/15.23
1998 19.9/4.84/15.06
1999 19.8/5.20/14.6
2000 20.6/5.99/14.61
2001 19.5/3.19/16.31
2002 17.6/2.40/15.2
Top rate changed to 35%....LTCG tax rate reduced to 16.1%, max rate
2003 16.2/2.69/13.51
2004 16.1/3.99/12.11
2005 17.3/5.22/12.08
2006 18.2/5.60/12.6

So...what do we see?

Clinton personal income tax rate increase did not increase personal tax revenue...in fact it actually reduced revenue from this source...

Cap gains accounted for the vast majority of revenue increases...a booming stock market is the driver of this increase...

There are too many loopholes...smart people move money to use the lower rates in other areas...see the thread on GE and it's income taxes...

Don't let facts get in the way! :rolleyes:

[pphilfran]

How come the economy was in the ****ter when Clinton took office then? Wasn't GHWB Prez after Reagan? :confused:

Jimmy Carter? Interest rate climbed to historic levels during his term...at the start of his term prime rate was 6.5%...by the end of his term rates were at 20%...rates then declined for the next two decades allowing business costs to be reduced and increasing profits that drove the increases in cap gains revenue...

[pphilfran]

SK you are just another Bessy cow getting led by a ring nose by political rhetoric that only talks about parts of the real story...

[C&CDean]

SK you are just another Bessy cow getting led by a ring nose by political rhetoric that only talks about parts of the real story...

Phil, I'm starting to warm up to you.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Phil, I'm starting to warm up to you.

Wear protection - he's a cowpoke.

[C&CDean]

Wear protection - he's a cowpoke.

Well at least he's not a left-coast Caesar Chavez wannabe humper.

[pphilfran]

Wear protection - he's a cowpoke.

You have lost your mind...

[hawaii 5-0]

Follow the money.........

The key to Gov. Walker's success.......


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker/

" Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement."

It's simple.....John Birch Founder Harry Bradley hated unions with a passion. Also minorities and women. One of the John Birch Society Boardmembers was Fred Koch who left his fortune to his sons, the infamous Koch Brothers.


5-0

[pphilfran]

The Fed problem...state problems are very similar...

The red line on the first chart is discretionary spending...sorry for the screw up..

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/totaloutlays1.jpg

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii187/pphilfran/ofoutlays1.jpg

[TitoMorelli]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker/


5-0

Talk about your credible sources. :rolleyes:

[GrapevineSooner]

Follow the money.........

The key to Gov. Walker's success.......


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker/

" Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement."

It's simple.....John Birch Founder Harry Bradley hated unions with a passion. Also minorities and women. One of the John Birch Society Boardmembers was Fred Koch who left his fortune to his sons, the infamous Koch Brothers.


5-0

Ergo, everyone who is a John Bircher hates women and minorities? :rolleyes:

Those graphs that phil posted just below must hate minorities and women, too.

[C&CDean]

Those graphs that phil posted just below must hate minorities and women, too.

Yeah, well who doesn't?

[sappstuf]

Follow the money.........

The key to Gov. Walker's success.......


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker/

" Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement."

It's simple.....John Birch Founder Harry Bradley hated unions with a passion. Also minorities and women. One of the John Birch Society Boardmembers was Fred Koch who left his fortune to his sons, the infamous Koch Brothers.

5-0

http://libertypundits.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/tin-foil-hat.jpg

[soonercruiser]

Follow the money.........

The key to Gov. Walker's success.......


http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/21/zombie-johnbirch-walker/

" Much of Walker’s critical political support can be credited to a network of right-wing fronts and astroturf groups in Wisconsin supported largely by a single foundation in Milwaukee: the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, a $460 million conservative honey pot dedicated to crushing the labor movement."

It's simple.....John Birch Founder Harry Bradley hated unions with a passion. Also minorities and women. One of the John Birch Society Boardmembers was Fred Koch who left his fortune to his sons, the infamous Koch Brothers.
5-0

Hummmm! :rolleyes:


The Progress Report - ThinkProgress » Think Progress. Print Think Progress logo ... 2005-2011 Center for American Progress Action Fund. FOLLOW US: Facebook Icon · Twitter Icon · RSS Icon ...
thinkprogress.org/the-progress-report/ - Cached - Similar


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_American_Progress
Center for American ProgressFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search
Center for American Progress
Founders John Podesta
Type Public policy think tank
Founded 2003
Location Washington, D.C.
Motto Progressive ideas for a strong, just, and free America.
Website www.americanprogress.org

The Center for American Progress is a progressive[1] public policy research and advocacy organization. Its website states that the organization is "dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action."[2] It has its headquarters in Washington D.C.[3]

Its President and Chief Executive Officer is John Podesta, who served as chief of staff to then U.S. President Bill Clinton. Located in Washington, D.C., the Center for American Progress has a campus outreach group, Campus Progress, and a sister advocacy organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Citing Podesta's influence in the formation of the Obama Administration, a November 2008 article in Time stated that "not since the Heritage Foundation helped guide Ronald Reagan's transition in 1981 has a single outside group held so much sway."[4]

Dang!
(should have used the Huffington Compost as a source!

[soonercruiser]

Gov. Scott Walker's Campaign Promises



http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2011/jan/01/look-scott-walkers-campaign-promises/

A look at Scott Walker's campaign promisesBy Dave Umhoefer
Published on Saturday, January 1st, 2011 at 10:00 p.m.

Share this article:
Republican Scott Walker made stopping the train to Madison, cutting taxes and creating 250,000 jobs the cornerstone promises of his successful bid for governor.

But he also made dozens of less-noticed pledges of high interest to hunters, gun owners, school parents, teachers, tourists, veterans and even ex-Wisconsinites.

Education
Walker and Republicans in the Capitol are primed to remove enrollment caps on private school choice and on virtual charter schools.

That was a Walker promise, along with bringing back the "qualified economic offer” system for school labor negotiations.

Walker also promised to grade schools based on quality, allow more teachers without education degrees and end social promotion for third graders who can't read up to standard.

"Nothing he proposed was out of reach,” said Olsen, who will chair the Senate Education Committee.

Perhaps the most controversial Walker education pledge is removing residency requirements for teachers.

Milwaukee city officials long have fought that, saying that ending residency would drain middle-class residents from the city; Walker says it's an arbitrary barrier that keeps qualified teachers from applying in certain districts.

Several other spources:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
"I campaigned on (the proposals in the budget repair bill for Wisconsin) all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years."
It seemed to us like the first public hint Walker gave that he was considering eliminating many union bargaining rights was at a Dec. 7, 2010 Milwaukee Press Club forum, some four weeks after the election.
So Walker’s claim he campaigned on all of this caught our attention -- and that of many readers, who have been e-mailing us asking us to check it out.
There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure.
But for Walker to be right, he has to be correct on the entirety of the plan. So we’ll look more deeply at the collective bargaining side of the equation, which has caused the ongoing firestorm in Madison.

And, do you think union employees are going to voluntarily take cuts???

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/15/keeping-santas-list/

Priebus: Walker Keeping Campaign Promises
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Priebus-Walker-Campaign-Promises/2011/02/22/id/386903

http://chippewa.com/news/local/article_846ab984-e827-11df-998b-001cc4c002e0.html

[R@bidred]

Without reading all this thread and having been a public employee, I firmly believe public employees should be employees at will.

[tcrb]

Without reading all this thread and having been a public employee, I firmly believe public employees should be employees at will.

I wholeheartedly agree with this post.

[hawaii 5-0]

Ok, lets try this one for fact checking. It's from Wisconsin. (how novel)

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/


"There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure."


but......


"For this item, we reviewed dozens of news accounts and various proposals on Walker’s campaign website to determine what he said about collective bargaining during the campaign. We talked to both campaigns in the governor’s race, and union officials.
But nowhere in our search did we find any such detailed discussion of collective bargaining changes as sweeping as Walker proposed.

Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.

But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either."


Bottom line.......


"We rate his statement False."



The voters in Wisconsin were lied to and now they're doing something about it.


Even the conservative Rasmussen Poll said the voters in Wisconsin are against Walkers underhanded tactics.

If there was a vote today Walker would be out on his ear.


5-0

[okie52]

Ok, lets try this one for fact checking. It's from Wisconsin. (how novel)

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/


"There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure."


but......


"For this item, we reviewed dozens of news accounts and various proposals on Walker’s campaign website to determine what he said about collective bargaining during the campaign. We talked to both campaigns in the governor’s race, and union officials.
But nowhere in our search did we find any such detailed discussion of collective bargaining changes as sweeping as Walker proposed.

Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.

But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either."


Bottom line.......


"We rate his statement False."



The voters in Wisconsin were lied to and now they're doing something about it.


Even the conservative Rasmussen Poll said the voters in Wisconsin are against Walkers underhanded tactics.

If there was a vote today Walker would be out on his ear.


5-0

Yeah, Americans are up in arms about PUBLIC EMPLOYEES having collective bargaining rights. That's why unions are so popular in the private sector...so popular in fact that Obama and many dems were going to try to ram the EFCA through congress so that unions could remove secret ballots in organizing. Fortunately his popularity nosedived to the point that it would be laughable for him to attempt it now in congress.

[soonercruiser]

Ok, lets try this one for fact checking. It's from Wisconsin. (how novel)

http://politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

"There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees. And, to be sure, that is an important part of the measure."
but......
"For this item, we reviewed dozens of news accounts and various proposals on Walker’s campaign website to determine what he said about collective bargaining during the campaign. We talked to both campaigns in the governor’s race, and union officials.
But nowhere in our search did we find any such detailed discussion of collective bargaining changes as sweeping as Walker proposed.

Walker contends he clearly "campaigned on" his union bargaining plan.

But Walker, who offered many specific proposals during the campaign, did not go public with even the bare-bones of his multi-faceted plans to sharply curb collective bargaining rights. He could not point to any statements where he did. We could find none either."

Bottom line.......

"We rate his statement False."

The voters in Wisconsin were lied to and now they're doing something about it.
Even the conservative Rasmussen Poll said the voters in Wisconsin are against Walkers underhanded tactics.
If there was a vote today Walker would be out on his ear.
5-0

Nowhere on Earth, EVERY, have politicans EXACTLY, IN DETAIL predicted the future actions of how he/she will carry out their campaign promises.
And your POlitifact article even says..... "There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees.

How does any reasonable person think what it will take to get union employees/unions to make concessions on benefits?????
Voluntarily ask them to make pre-concessions? REALLY???

BTW - the links I posted had all this discussion (both sides) in great detail.

[Mongo]

Maybe he wouldnt have to axe collective bargaining if those union folk would actually be realistic and give up some of their tax funded salaries and bennies.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Maybe he wouldnt have to axe collective bargaining if those union folk would actually be realistic and give up some of their tax funded salaries and bennies.It all comes down to political power. The unions have had their way, for all the years the democrats controlled WI politics. The worm has turned, and the unions are not gonna let the law stop them, it seems.

[hawaii 5-0]

Nowhere on Earth, EVERY, have politicans EXACTLY, IN DETAIL predicted the future actions of how he/she will carry out their campaign promises.
And your POlitifact article even says..... "There is no dispute that Walker campaigned on getting concessions on health and pension benefits from state employees.

How does any reasonable person think what it will take to get union employees/unions to make concessions on benefits?????
Voluntarily ask them to make pre-concessions? REALLY???

BTW - the links I posted had all this discussion (both sides) in great detail.




Did you read the bottom (fina)l line analysis of yours (and mine) reference?

"We rate his statement False."


It said that Walker was lying. See that little meter on the page, the one that points below FALSE? That means it's not true.

Walker did not campaign on getting the public unions right to collectively bargain. It doesn't get simpler than that, regardless of your spin.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

It all comes down to political power. The unions have had their way, for all the years the democrats controller WI politics. The worm has turned, and the unions are not gonna let the law stop them, it seems.




Me thinks that there were more Republican governors than Democrat in Wisconsin.


But you're right. Like you say it's about political power, not money. Gov. Walker tried to bust the unions by using the pretext of balancing the budget. he woke up the dragon and now he's gotta suffer the consequences. But first his stooges in the Senate and the Assembly will learn their lesson for toading along with Walker.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Maybe he wouldnt have to axe collective bargaining if those union folk would actually be realistic and give up some of their tax funded salaries and bennies.


Did you just wake up?



The public unions long ago agreed to give up benefits. Gov. Walker said nope, that's not enough. I want the unions busted. They can have some scraps but not the right to bargain. That's why the Dem 14 bolted.

Both Walker and Senate Majority leader Fitzgerald admitted it was about busting the unions.


Maybe you should read my post about following the money. Walker is just doing as he's told by the corporate fat cats and Karl Rove. He's just their pawn.


5-0


5-0

[Mongo]

Good for Walker. Maybe it is time for unions in the public sector to disappear. When was a teacher last diagnosed with black lung or a school administrator get caught in a belt driven shaft that wasnt properly covered for safety?

Christie/Walker '12

[okie52]

I don't want unions in the private sector to disappear. We need them and collective bargaining to be an option for labor. Hopefully an option that will be rarely sought because the market/labor conditions have been handled sufficiently to make their choice unnecessary.

The Public Employees don't need the unions/collective bargaining. They have elected officials to plead their case. They are working for the public. This isn't a "right" as some would suggest but an unnecessary privilege that these unions/employees have forced upon the public. I look forward to the day when unions are eliminated from the public sector.

[usmc-sooner]

Good for Walker. Maybe it is time for unions in the public sector to disappear. When was a teacher last diagnosed with black lung or a school administrator get caught in a belt driven shaft that wasnt properly covered for safety?

Christie/Walker '12

wake up, didn't you read his post about corporate fat cats. :D It's the corporate fat cats not the unions that are greedy.

please revise your opinion.

[Mongo]

Corporate fat cats were whining and protesting in Madison? :D

[soonercruiser]

Corporate fat cats were whining and protesting in Madison? :D

Yes! Except these corporate fats cats are the teacher's unions.
Revise the attack!

[SoonerKnight]

Maybe he wouldnt have to axe collective bargaining if those union folk would actually be realistic and give up some of their tax funded salaries and bennies.

Try to keep up Mongo they gave the governor the pay and benefit cuts he wanted. He still wanted collective bargaining at all costs! :rolleyes:

[SoonerKnight]

I don't want unions in the private sector to disappear. We need them and collective bargaining to be an option for labor. Hopefully an option that will be rarely sought because the market/labor conditions have been handled sufficiently to make their choice unnecessary.

The Public Employees don't need the unions/collective bargaining. They have elected officials to plead their case. They are working for the public. This isn't a "right" as some would suggest but an unnecessary privilege that these unions/employees have forced upon the public. I look forward to the day when unions are eliminated from the public sector.

You know not of what you speak! There is a reason that the WI governor left the firefighter and cops alone. Teachers is another skilled job that can not be easily replaced!

[okie52]

You know not of what you speak! There is a reason that the WI governor left the firefighter and cops alone. Teachers is another skilled job that can not be easily replaced!

By that same logic the military should be allowed to unionize/collective bargain. I never said leave firefighters or cops alone. If they are on the public tit collective bargaining should not be an option.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I heard or read some comments from either cop(s) or firefighter(s) in WI recently about how they might refuse to serve if not granted their normal pay packages. It might have been a week or more ago. Somebody might want to dig that out.

[MamaMia]

Did you read the bottom (fina)l line analysis of yours (and mine) reference?

"We rate his statement False."


It said that Walker was lying. See that little meter on the page, the one that points below FALSE? That means it's not true.

Walker did not campaign on getting the public unions right to collectively bargain. It doesn't get simpler than that, regardless of your spin.


5-0

Did he say he WASN'T going to get rid of collective bargaining?

[sappstuf]

Did he say he WASN'T going to get rid of collective bargaining?

:)

I don't remember Obama running on pay freezes for all federal employees for a couple of years.. You know, the ones WITHOUT collective bargaining rights? I also don't remember anyone going crazy about it either.. Guess it just matters who is in office.

[Mongo]

Try to keep up Mongo they gave the governor the pay and benefit cuts he wanted. He still wanted collective bargaining at all costs! :rolleyes:

Public servants shouldnt have collective bargaining. If tax dollars dry up, go find a new line of work, or suck it up and quit bitching

[hawaii 5-0]

Did he say he WASN'T going to get rid of collective bargaining?





Could I nominate this reply as the Lamest Post of the Year ????



I call this The Chocolate Chip Cookie Excuse, popularized by 5th graders.


Mom makes 2 dozen chocolate chip cookies and has them cooling on the counter. She tells little Johnny not to eat the cookies. An hour later she returns and there's only one cookie left. "Didn't I tell you not to eat the cookies?" "You didn't say don't eat ALL of them."



5-0

[SoonerKnight]

By that same logic the military should be allowed to unionize/collective bargain. I never said leave firefighters or cops alone. If they are on the public tit collective bargaining should not be an option.

Then you'll put out your own fires and have no one to respond to you for help!

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Then you'll put out your own fires and have no one to respond to you for help!




The idea that no one will work if they can't be in a union is beyond ridiculous.

[okie52]

Then you'll put out your own fires and have no one to respond to you for help!

What a stupid statement. We can't hire firefighters and/or police unless they are in a union? :D You really need to get a grip.

[MamaMia]

Could I nominate this reply as the Lamest Post of the Year ????



I call this The Chocolate Chip Cookie Excuse, popularized by 5th graders.


Mom makes 2 dozen chocolate chip cookies and has them cooling on the counter. She tells little Johnny not to eat the cookies. An hour later she returns and there's only one cookie left. "Didn't I tell you not to eat the cookies?" "You didn't say don't eat ALL of them."



5-0 Screw you and your stupid analogies. You're always changing the subject and twisting things around. As usual, you just don't understand how it works in the political world. Politicians don't tell the voters every single move they're going to make. Considering the fact that he ran on the republican ticket, faithful to the republican agenda, which as of late has included extreme but necessary spending cuts, you would have to be a total a dumbass not to know he was going to make republican moves. What the hell part of 'Wisconsin is broke' do you not understand? There is no money to bargain over McFly.

Heres another analogy for you. My neighbor hires you to walk his fat azz dogs. Knowing the need to work off the results of eating an over abundance of pig ears and doggy goodies and knowing you only have a limited amount of time to get the dogs in good shape, you decide to run with them instead. Should your neighbor bitch and whine about it?

[Soonerfan88]

http://247wallst.com/2011/03/27/american-ghost-towns-of-the-21st-century/#

This lists the top ten new 'ghost counties' of America - population over 10,000 and housing vacancies over 55%. Wisconsin has 3 of them. I'd say there are going to be some hard decisions made by whoever is in charge and most citizens won't like it. Unfortunately, politicians across the country (no matter how they are registered) have been ignoring financial issues too long and we will all be feeling the pinch in coming years.

[badger]

As an ex-resident of Wisky, it seems that the three problems that likely led to the "ghost county" issue are:

1- Property taxes are high compared with other states.
2- Not a lot of job growth.
3- It was cold a lot.

Wisconsin's a great state to stretch your legs and go hunting and fishing into your retirement years --- but a lot of people get sick of the cold weather by retirement time and move south. Many others get sick of the cold before retirement and move south earlier. Still others got sick of the high taxes, lack of jobs and cold and moved south immediately.

I imagine people in Wisconsin seeing their neighbors leave feel about how Oklahomans do when they see people move to Texas. They don't like it, but they understand why.

[sappstuf]

Gov. Scott Walker’s administration no longer is collecting dues on behalf of state unions and, as of Sunday, is charging employees more for their pensions and health care, even though nonpartisan legislative attorneys say the changes are not yet law.

Why are governments doing this in the first place? It is none of their business.

[tcrb]

Screw you and your stupid analogies. You're always changing the subject and twisting things around. As usual, you just don't understand how it works in the political world. Politicians don't tell the voters every single move they're going to make. Considering the fact that he ran on the republican ticket, faithful to the republican agenda, which as of late has included extreme but necessary spending cuts, you would have to be a total a dumbass not to know he was going to make republican moves. What the hell part of 'Wisconsin is broke' do you not understand? There is no money to bargain over McFly.

Heres another analogy for you. My neighbor hires you to walk his fat azz dogs. Knowing the need to work off the results of eating an over abundance of pig ears and doggy goodies and knowing you only have a limited amount of time to get the dogs in good shape, you decide to run with them instead. Should your neighbor bitch and whine about it?

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MamaMia again."