Wisconsin Revolt

Who do you support in the Wisconsin Revolt?


  • Total voters
    118

Ernst

Well-Known Member
California is a huge rat race(Southland mostly), people don't stop for anything unless it is cheese. Get out to the Mid-West and people will stop and help you all the time.
How about Homosexuality? Do you all stop and comfort a Gay man who has been wronged?
Or how about a 15 year old girl who faces not finishing school or having an abortion. Do you Mid-Westerners stop and help the Girl get that abortion and save her future?
I question the smugness of how the Mid-West is so good.. As far as I know y'all still count on Guest Workers for most of the Farm-related profits while complaining there are "Guest-Worker Children-Citizens" to deal with once they have made the Mid-West Profits.

Maybe I am wrong.. Update me.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
It will go to the Supreme court..

I'm guessing JohnnyOrganic that this is having a negative impact on the Republican image and they want it and it to fade from view as quickly as possible.

Otherwise that Governor would be interested in upholding the Law not defining it.

How do we present to the American workers a concept of a horrid past as a better future and ignore the lesson of failure from that very past: Lack of Workers rights.

Remember these rules are being made by people who can afford to have someone else clean their toilets. So they are used to shitting and making someone else clean it up..
They are culturally isolated from the very rule they expect the rest of us to live and die by.

Time to roll a Sunday Phatty..

It's good to post and fight for Legalization while enjoying a Phatty.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
It will go to the Supreme court..

I'm guessing JohnnyOrganic that this is having a negative impact on the Republican image and they want it and it to fade from view as quickly as possible.

Otherwise that Governor would be interested in upholding the Law not defining it.
If that were true, publishing the law yesterday was counter-intuitive because it has drawn attention right back to the issue.

And the smelly horde is up in arms again.

How do we present to the American workers a concept of a horrid past as a better future and ignore the lesson of failure from that very past: Lack of Workers rights.

Remember these rules are being made by people who can afford to have someone else clean their toilets. So they are used to shitting and making someone else clean it up..
They are culturally isolated from the very rule they expect the rest of us to live and die by.

Time to roll a Sunday Phatty..

It's good to post and fight for Legalization while enjoying a Phatty.
NO ONE is being deprived of their rights in this case.

There is no RIGHT to collective bargaining.

Unless we each have different versions of the U.S. Constitution.

Enjoy the fatty. :peace:
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
How about Homosexuality? Do you all stop and comfort a Gay man who has been wronged?
Or how about a 15 year old girl who faces not finishing school or having an abortion. Do you Mid-Westerners stop and help the Girl get that abortion and save her future?
I question the smugness of how the Mid-West is so good.. As far as I know y'all still count on Guest Workers for most of the Farm-related profits while complaining there are "Guest-Worker Children-Citizens" to deal with once they have made the Mid-West Profits.

Maybe I am wrong.. Update me.
Yep, you are way off base bro, perhaps you never lived in the mid west so you have no experiences, just what you read.
Guest workers? You mean migrant workers? Yeah they come every year, they make $21 an hour, so what? They are legal to be there doing what they do, in fact if you want a good job done you seek out the Mexican guys to do all your roofing, stucco and gardening work. Why? Cuz they are good at it, way better than most even if they do cost a little bit more.
 

NewGrowth

Well-Known Member
Anarchy in the UK! More overpaid public workers sucking the tit of government. Wake up! we ship 50,000 manufacturing jobs to china every month. Our current wealth is maintained only by debt. It's your choice wake up
and start accepting reality or not.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
If that were true, publishing the law yesterday was counter-intuitive because it has drawn attention right back to the issue.

And the smelly horde is up in arms again.


NO ONE is being deprived of their rights in this case.

There is no RIGHT to collective bargaining.

Unless we each have different versions of the U.S. Constitution.

Enjoy the fatty. :peace:
What no rights to collective bargaining?
Really.. All this time that is what ace in the hole you have?

Guess again...

If that were true, publishing the law yesterday was counter-intuitive because it has drawn attention right back to the issue.
Look at it two ways. One, he is a hero to his political base and Two, he is a villain of American Freedom.

If this was a judge declaring a lynching fair and just punishment did that make it right?

Enjoy this website. The loss of worker rights is directly akin to slavery and class warfare on the poor.

http://withoutsanctuary.org/
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Show me where Reagan had a serious issue? Notice our debt goes up whenever we are blowing shit up and when we aren't, it goes down. Obama is on track to cost us more than WW2 as percent of our GDP and in dollars. That is pretty impressive.
Seriously? You can see the debt spiking since Reagan? Debt as a % of GDP doesn't independently measure debt, but still you can clearly see that debt has been a massive problem since Reagan. Truman, Ike, JFK, JBL, Nixon, Ford, and Carter all had a much higher tax rate on the rich and our debt went down. After Reagan slashed taxes on the rich the debt started to go up and we've been slashing rich people's taxes and creating debt ever since.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
I don't buy into the scare tactics used by Progressive think tanks designed to scare the living crap out of gullible bed-wetters.

If only those programs listed by the Center for American Progress were actually at-risk.

Not one of them meets Constitutional muster as a function of the Federal government.

The states, or the people, are vested with those responsibilities.
So you claim those programs are not at risk then immediately start explaining why they should go. lol
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
Again I have to depend on the Internet for my facts. Here is a snippit from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_bargaining

The right to collectively bargain is recognized through international human rights conventions. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights identifies the ability to organize trade unions as a fundamental human right.[3] Item 2(a) of the International Labour Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work defines the "freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining" as an essential right of workers.[4]
In June 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada extensively reviewed the rationale for regarding collective bargaining as a human right. In the case of Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association v. British Columbia, the Court made the following observations:
The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work... Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends…rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.[5]
It's a Human Right that was paid for with burning girls jumping out windows while the Owners of factories escape harm and financial ruin.

nw-Triangle-fire-Shirtwaist.jpg
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
If all that money was taken from all those rich people to pay for all those programs, would that improve the state of the economy or hurt it? Can anyone explain why or why not?
Improve it. The explanation is easy. When you provide services to the poor/middle class they do not have to pay for their services so they have more money to spend. A poor or middle class person is much more likely to spend that money in the economy than a rich person. That stimulates the economy.

Example - a chunk of money could be given to 1 rich person or 50 working class people. 50 working class people given the money would go out and buy 50 iphones (just an example). A rich person given that money only needs to buy 1 iphone. That would mean 50 times more goods are sold by giving the money to working class people. The increase in demand for that phone who cause a need to increase production of that phone which creates working class jobs which creates more working class people who can afford to go buy a new iphone. The cycle continues.

It you look at our tax rates on the wealthy between the 1950's and 1980's is proves that we can tax the rich at a higher rate and still have a successful economy. When America is at it's best it is because working class people can afford to spend money in the economy. In times like this where they can't afford to spend money, the economy suffers.
 

Illegal Smile

Well-Known Member
Improve it. The explanation is easy. When you provide services to the poor/middle class they do not have to pay for their services so they have more money to spend. A poor or middle class person is much more likely to spend that money in the economy than a rich person. That stimulates the economy.

Example - a chunk of money could be given to 1 rich person or 50 working class people. 50 working class people given the money would go out and buy 50 iphones (just an example). A rich person given that money only needs to buy 1 iphone. That would mean 50 times more goods are sold by giving the money to working class people. The increase in demand for that phone who cause a need to increase production of that phone which creates working class jobs which creates more working class people who can afford to go buy a new iphone. The cycle continues.

It you look at our tax rates on the wealthy between the 1950's and 1980's is proves that we can tax the rich at a higher rate and still have a successful economy. When America is at it's best it is because working class people can afford to spend money in the economy. In times like this where they can't afford to spend money, the economy suffers.
Sorry. What do you think the money of the rich is doing? They can only buy so many homes and yachts. That money "is" the capital that keeps the economy running. It literally "is" the privat sector economy. And every dollar that government takes out is a drag on the economy no matter who is paying it. Nothing can stimulate the economy better than cutting taxes, because it is by definition putting money into the economy. And it's real money not deficit spending. Your argument is like trying to borrow your way out of debt.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Good job with the wiki Ernst now look up: "public servant" and get back to me.
I don't like a lot of the results from public employee unions. I don't like how hard it is for a public employee union member to get fired. I don't like their pension programs. In theory, I'm not even sure that some of them should even have unions.

But I also know that they are the strongest unions we have left. I do know that without unions we would be a country of sweatshops. I know that with out the money and organization they throw into politics working people would have no pull at all with our government. We'd just have two parties both representing management. To an extent we already do because most of the powerful unions have been busted up.

I know that without unions we wouldn't have a 40 hour work week, a minimum wage, safe work places, child labor laws, etc. Without unions we would never have had a middle class in this country at all. For that reason I support the public unions. We need them. Without them working people have no voice. I know that our financial crisis didn't happen because teachers pay 6% of their pensions instead of 12%. I know that governor Walker cut taxes to the rich and mega corporations and the money that was spent for those tax cuts adds up to the same amount he's asking in cuts to the unions. He's simply taken money from working class people and handing it over to the rich. It's a big scam.

All those things considered I have to support the Wisconsin unions and unions all over the country in states trying to pull this same scam.
 

Charlie Ventura

Active Member
From Ernst's post:

The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work... Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends…rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace. Workers gain a voice to influence the establishment of rules that control a major aspect of their lives.[5]

This may be true in the private sector, but what is at issue here are the PUBLIC employees. When union bosses sit down with politicians at the bargaining table both the unions and politicians are representing the public employees. Therefore, there is a missing faction not at the table, that being the taxpayer, the true employer. Hell, if the Progressives want "fairness" as they say, then let a taxpayer's union be present across the table at all negotiation sessions. That should level the playing field, and isn't a "level playing field" what all of you Progressive want?
 
Top