Wisconsin Revolt
- Thread starter Carne Seca
- Start date
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
The People will win,,,Dictator's are highly frowned against in the USA.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
"Why do you have a right to YOUR money?"
[video=youtube;wD809fp6i_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0[/video]
That sums it up nicely.
[video=youtube;wD809fp6i_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0[/video]
That sums it up nicely.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;QyxuUjgHkgs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyxuUjgHkgs[/video]
They are getting it as part of their pay for the job, correct. The issue being that the employers (tax payers) do not get a say in how much they actually pay. It is being negotiated by what is essentially organized crime. The tax payer pays 100% of the pension, salaries, insurance, benefits for the teachers - the teachers do a job in return for it. This remains the same whether the teachers pay nothing or $5000 for their benefits. Once again - The tax payers pay all the money, the teachers do the work in return for it. No one forces the teachers to be teachers at a certain pay and no one should force the tax payers to pay the teachers a certain amount. How many teachers will quit over this small cut in pay to keep the state from going kaput? My guess is very few to none. What does this mean? This means the rate of pay is still sufficient for the job being done.
If you owned bought a burger place(the state-country-whatever) and you payed a manager to manage your store(president, gov, senate ect ect), and he hired a bunch people to work in your store (teachers, janitors, ect ect ect) for 10 bucks and everything was good, you made money. Then, the people decided they wanted 20 bucks an hour, so they started a union(or joined one) The laws made it so you couldn't hire anyone else and so your choice was pay 20 dollars or close down. What would your decision be? You can
a) Lose money (Deficit Spending)
b) Raise the price of the burgers to the point where no one is willing to pay (Raise Taxes)
c) Fight the pay increase in court and try to get rid of the union. (What Wisconsin is doing)
d) Close down (Bankruptcy)
These are the same choices that the Wisconsin Gov had to make. No one will answer D. Democrats will answer A or B. Republicans will answer C.
Deficit spending and raising taxes are BS and neither of them can continue to happen. Obviously someone chose A or B at some point in Wisconsin's history, and it obviously didn't work, so now they are trying C.
How much is a worker worth? Well, the honest answer is the least amount they are willing to work for. If you can hire teachers for 35k why would you hire them for 40k?
How much is success worth? Well, as much as a person is willing to pay to attain it.
The short and long of it is: If they don't want to work as teachers in Wisconsin making a few percent less, then they should go do something else with their lives.
Also, the 10-20% number that is bounced around by the left for how much the pay cut would be is BS. Since many of you argue that teachers pay 100% of their pensions already and that it is part of their pay, lets look at it your way then! Teachers make 100k a year on average in Wisconsin after all is said and done. They are being asked to pay how much? About 3000. So 3% pay cut. Boo friggin hoo. So lets skip forward to the real issue - Unions being allowed to negotiate with the government for benefits. OK. Lets make it a level playing ground and say:
EVERY UNION NEGOTIATION HAS TO BE APPROVED BY A VOTE OF THE TAXPAYERS FROM NOW ON.
Right now Unions negotiate with elected officials. The issue is that just about every Democrat gets money from the Unions. Then the Unions renegotiate every time a Democrat is in office and get more 'concessions'. If the Democrat was to deny the Unions, then the Union wouldn't support his campaign the next time. So the Democrat does whatever the Union wants. They call it blackmail and the Democrat isn't losing anything from siding with the Unions, he loses by siding with the Taxpayer. That is why each teacher costs 100k a year.
Walker is basically saying "Unions don't have the right to tell us what Benefits to offer any longer" Which makes sense. If you don't like the benefits, find a different job.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my wife is on the phone right now with my sis in law. she is a teacher in downtown LA. she teaches 6th grade english. she also helps with the science enrichment program for the 8th graders.
they are talking now because she just got out of work. 12 hour day. very common.
her salary? $46K a year.
that is pittance when you take into account the cost of living in downtown LA.
she is going to head home and grade papers now.
during the summer, which for her is only about a month and a half, she updates lesson plans and takes classes to better her education and teaching style. most of them are required.
how many people do you know with masters degrees work as hard as she does for so little money?
and why should she or any of her colleagues be forced to pay for a recession that they did not create?
they are talking now because she just got out of work. 12 hour day. very common.
her salary? $46K a year.
that is pittance when you take into account the cost of living in downtown LA.
she is going to head home and grade papers now.
during the summer, which for her is only about a month and a half, she updates lesson plans and takes classes to better her education and teaching style. most of them are required.
how many people do you know with masters degrees work as hard as she does for so little money?
and why should she or any of her colleagues be forced to pay for a recession that they did not create?
That says it pretty fucking clearly.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, don't be mad because you aren't on top.
be mad because those on top have their boot firmly pressed on your neck, instead of a hand extended to help you up.
be mad because you play fair and work hard, while those on top rape the tax code and do whatever they can get away with to make another penny.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
say it again! say it again!
i think we may have found out new buzzword for 2011!
c'mon, righties, make it happen!
actually, my reaction is something a little more like this:
[video=youtube;G2y8Sx4B2Sk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/video]
i can tell you exactly how to make it sustainable: don't give away the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks t corporations who don't need it, and you won't have to take it from the backs of teachers and nurses.
which, by the way, they have already agreed to.
so clearly, the money is not the issue: they have already conceded that.
what are you so afraid of, that they will bargain themselves a pay cut once again?
boo fucking hoo.
honor their contracts.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, property taxes from people who choose to move to a certain location voluntarily knowing that the property tax will be involved.
no force there. they have the decision to make and they make it. they could just as easily move somewhere else.
and they work to earn what they are paid, and i think if you went out and asked people, i wager you'd find they like the concept of public education and are willing to pay for it.
oh, also the lottery helps fund schools too. but i bet you think people are forced to buy lottery tickets.
Ernst
Well-Known Member
So the answer is we all have to lower our value and our expectations of life while some continue to enrich theirs because we are teachers or welders for example."Why do you have a right to YOUR money?"
[video=youtube;wD809fp6i_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0[/video]
That sums it up nicely.
Nice to see that people are starting to see the Trickle Down Economy at work.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
don't make me start posting videos of tea partiers"Why do you have a right to YOUR money?"
[video=youtube;wD809fp6i_0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD809fp6i_0[/video]
That sums it up nicely.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
Because It's stolen? Why are the police and figherfighter's exempt? The are "Public secter Unions"?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Your first example relies on the same logic as saying if she hadn't worn that low cut blouse nobody would have raped her.
Your second line would be near valid if the place a person could "voluntarily" move to provided a sancuary from the imposition of force.
If there is no way to "not pay" something, the use of voluntary is incorrect.
I have no problem with those that like public schools paying for it. My problem lies with those that don't like public schools being made to pay for them under the threat of force, which you always seem to conveniently forget or gloss over.
Lottery tickets? Nobody has forced me to buy them, but they would attack me if I attempted to have a private lottery. Thugs will always try to protect their rackets and hate competition eh?
Ernst
Well-Known Member
Those two unions supported Walker in the Elections
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
not unless you have a persecution complex and run a cult.
rape is never the fault of the victim.
there are not even any "victims" of property tax.
grow the fuck up.
there are many unincorporated areas around here that have no school districts.
if you object so strongly to your property taxes going to schools, there is your option.
besides, it is clear to me by now that you have no idea what words mean.
especially 'extortion'.
nope, not forgetting shit.
you are the one who forgets that you may abscond any time you want.
how many times must i remind you: if you want the benefits of society, you can not simultaneously forgo the costs.
you are typing your bullshit on a computer and disseminating it over the internet...you take advantage of the benefits of society.
and yet you cry like a baby about the fact that ANY BENEFIT COMES WITH A COST.
this applies to everything, including evolution.
way to let that persecution complex shine.
get back to the compound now. go preach to your cult.
PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1
Well-Known Member
Wow keep on keeping arguing lol
but the poll now is what it is.
but the poll now is what it is.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Got your internet muscles flexed eh?
Rape is never the fault of the victim. Okay. We seem to agree there. Why? Is it because on some level you acknowledge that the initiation of force against a person that isn't consenting is wrong? Now take that concept and broaden it just a bit to include other forms of force applied to unconsenting persons....Feel that tingle? It's your cognitive dissonance alarm going off.