Saturday, February 19, 2011

Media Failed Us Again—The Truth About Wisconsin




As I mentioned in a previous post, Media slants, omits, and to be perfectly blunt, lies. There is no way the American public can make a rational decision when we can’t get unbiased details pertaining to important issues facing our country, and quite frankly, our lives.



There is a state war brewing in Wisconsin, which is probably the first in many to come, with states being cash strapped and cuts imminent. Governor Walker is under attack by many on the Left because he’s taking on the Union. Public workers-- teachers, police officers and fire fighters, are being called “bottom feeder free loaders” by Rush Limbaugh, because they are protesting at the state capital.

And the media, both Left and Right, is making it worse by not giving the public the FACTS.

Rachel Maddow and some left-winged blogs have informed their audience that Governor Walker inherited a surplus of $121 million, and gave away $140 million in tax breaks (there are tax cuts, but they don't go into effect until next year) which caused the projected $137 million dollar deficit and is taking on the union, and its workers, in order to destroy them, the middle class and the Democratic Party. Right-wing media and blogs are telling their audience that public sector employees are selfish, greedy, and should be fired.

Pitting public sector Americans/taxpayers against private sector Americans/taxpayers, in my humble opinion, is not only egregious, but could very well prove dangerous.

In light of how derelict our media has become, I would like to set the record straight and give you some facts. I promise you I’ve researched left and right sites without my political lenses and just want to report the truth.

I am an American, who is the daughter of a retired teacher, and the sister of a police officer, and I most certainly don’t believe that my mom or my brother are “selfish” or “free loaders”. I’ve also paid attention to the unions, public and private, and I’m here to tell you that they don’t have the best interest of the people at heart. There was a time, long ago, when they did, but not anymore. They have a political agenda, just like politicians and the media.

And the media neglected the truth. Wisconsin does NOT have a surplus. Robert Lang, Director of the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, issued a report, and this sentence, Our analysis indicates a general fund gross balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million, seems to have caused the confusion, because that alone doesn’t tell Wisconsin’s entire fiscal story.

Further in his report, Lang lists $58.7 million needed to repay a Minnesota Income Tax Reciprocity Payment and $258 million in Appropriation Shortfalls. Then there’s $200 million due the state’s Patient Compensation Fund, which the former Governor, Jim Doyle, illegally used to offset the general fund. The circuit court has yet to give a date and final amount, which will include interest, to replenish the Patient account. Those added to the so-called surplus gives the state an approximate $340 million dollar deficit.

Governor Walker now wants to tackle this deficit by asking for concessions from the union workers by asking them to pay up to 12% for pensions and health benefits (8% net pay reduction). Walker wants to limit collective bargaining. By this he wants them limited to wages, capping them at the consumer price index, and taking benefits and rules off the table. He wants annual recertification by majority vote of ALL members, not just a majority of those casting ballots. Walker wants to stop the mandatory deduction of union dues from a union employee’s paycheck and he wants to give employees the option to quit the union without losing their job.

From what I’ve read, there isn’t anyone who thinks the pension/health benefit contribution is out of line. It seems to be the collective bargaining that’s the issue. Some say capping the bargaining at wages renders unions worthless because it doesn’t permit them to bargain for hours, shifts or working conditions. Now, one could argue that with all our laws, we don’t need a union to bargain for working conditions, that we have plenty of laws (wage & hour, equal opportunity, discrimination, etc.) to protect us, and that’s true. But maybe Walker felt that police officers and firefighters should still be able to collectively bargain, after all, they’re EXEMPT from this bill, and let’s face it, they do have the worst hours and the most dangerous working conditions of all the public employees. However, Walker said this was an issue of fiscal security, so why aren't ALL public workers included? Another question then, is, how important is collective bargaining? Do employees really NEED it and are states that ban collective bargaining better off or worse than states that permit it?

Here is an interactive map of the United States and it will show you that 11 permit collective bargaining, 5 prohibit it, and 35 have mandatory collective bargaining. This interactive map rates each state on issues like infrastructure, people and economics, resulting in a grade. If collective bargaining were a huge factor in how WELL a state performed, then, according to the Right’s theory, those states that prohibit collective bargaining would out-perform those states that require it, however, that’s not what the data proves. That tells us unions aren’t as defeating as some on the Right would like us to believe, and the data also tells us that unions aren’t the Great Deliverer for the little guy as some on the Left would like us to believe. There are too many factors. Unions alone can’t fix everything—look at New Hampshire, a mandated collective bargaining state, which has a D+ rating, then go to Washington, also a mandated state, it has an A- rating.

We Americans need to get on the same page and put ideologies aside because Wisconsin is tethering with many other states soon to follow. People are angry, and rightly so. They’ve been lied to by the very people who told them their futures were safe and secure only to find out the parachute won’t open, and even if it does, it’s full of holes. The problem isn’t the teacher, the police officer or even the private sector accountant or beautician. There's a whole lot of blame to go around here, but we certainly can't blame people for wanting to make a living and for believing those who told them they could and would.

I understand that unions are important to the Democrats. Unions donate large sums of money to the Democratic Party. What I don’t understand is how the unions and politicians can lie and deceive us time and time again, pitting us against one another. As Americans it’s time for us to come together. It’s not public vs. private employee, as they would have us believe. It’s us vs. them.

While we, private and public Americans, have been working and feeding our families, they’ve been hiding the truth and making promises they KNEW they couldn’t keep, all for political gain. They knew one day the truth would come out, but they wouldn’t be in office or in charge of the unions when that day came, therefore they didn’t care.

Well, the day of reckoning is HERE and it’s time to pay the piper, in more ways than one. Our officials need to stop lying and do the right thing, even if it means telling us something we might not want to hear. The truth isn’t always pleasant, but it sure beats finding out you’ve been lied to, because at least then we can try to rectify the problem before it's too big to fix.

And I can't say it enough, our media needs to do the right thing too! Stop cow-towing to political parties and start reporting the facts, regardless of what they are.

We don't ask for much from our media, but it seems we get even less.



Picture Compliments of: Worth 1000 by pcysmith

98 comments:

  1. If governer Walker is interested in balancing the budget, huge tax concessions to big business
    seems like an ill conceived start. Having been educated in Wisconsin and been in business my whole life...I'll side with the educators.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no question that in the past unions have over-reached in many aspects and have been involved in dubious activities and heavy-handed tactics. OTOH, we have a debt to them for what labor has achieved in the workplace to make it safer and more equitable.

    What did you find in your research vis-a-vis the Koch brothers and their involvement in Wisconsin politics and the move to destroy unions?

    There are lots of stories flyin, around the internet about them, and the ones I've read have been negative.

    Forbes ran this story about them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The media is still at it. They have gone into great agony to avoid putting the stripping of collective bargaining anywhere near their headlines. My disgust with the MSM was already high. Now, it's through the roof.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pamela, Well done! It is indeed a pleasure to have the facts presented rather than hyperbole from the "lame stream" media and the political "left" and "right."

    Thank you for your in depth research and reporting the facts. A special thanks you for reporTing them here on the pages of RN USA.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent analysis Pamela.

    BB is right. The Wisconsin governor should have jacked up taxes on those rich business owners! Look how well it's worked for California's unemployment rate and budget...

    ReplyDelete
  6. EPI does some good work for the left side. At this point, it's not about pay equity or whatever.

    Smart people on both sides can crunch the numbers however to make their point. It's now about what We The Taxpayer can afford.

    The fundamental problem with determining public sector workers' pay is that while governments provide essential services, they are essentially a monopoly, so the price of a worker cannot be discovered like in a free market. All we are left with then is to pay them what the budget can bear.

    It is also past time to open up all of these government functions to privatization so that competition and innovation is introduced.

    It is also past time to untether retirement and health care and other benefits from private and public employment. Too many people are hanging on to a job they hate because they are vested. This introduces inefficiencies. We all should be independent contractors, free to terminate our employment without fearing losing medical coverage or a pension plan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Pamela,
    The paper cited by Shaw (above) draws a different conclusion when statistics are controlled for education, experience, hours of work, organizational size, gender, race, ethnicity, and disability, among other measurements:

    "Conclusion: are state and local public employees overpaid? (...) The earnings equation estimates indicate that public employees, both state and local government employees, are not overpaid and may be slightly undercompensated."

    One detail that you did not take into account: The public sector unions AGREED to a cut in benefits as requested by the governor, but they did not agree to have their collective rights stripped away. Restated: a voluntary give-back saves money; whereas a revocation of rights is a political hatchet job that saves nothing.

    In addition, your post fails to take into account the role of the Koch family in Wisconsin politics. Besides union-busting, the Koch family wants a suspension of all environmental protections regulating air and water safety. It means the Koch family pockets monies not spent on environmental cleanup; although the good citizens of Wisconsin will be exposed to ever increasing amounts of heavy metals, formaldehyde and other pollutants in the air they breathe and the water they drink.

    IOW, in supporting the oligarchy, you are selling out the birthright of future generations, and I have to ask honestly: Where do YOUR interests lie? With billionaires, or with your children and prospective grandchildren who will inherit a polluted legacy ... and stripped of their rights to redress their grievances?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh Please!

    By Octo's definition, 80% of the workforce is "stripped of their rights to redress their grievances"

    Patently false. Believe it or not, in many professions, grownup human beings talk with their bosses and management and bargain for all kinds of stuff, including pay raises. And they do it all without a union.

    Here's some anecdotal evidence that government workers are not underpaid:

    Even in good times, government employees leave their jobs for greener pastures at a much lower rate than those in the private sector. So is the grass really greener on the private sector side? Logic based upon factual observation says no.

    Here's why George Meaney and FDR were against collective bargaining for public sector employees

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions

    ReplyDelete
  9. I will kindly ask that everyone stay on-topic and refrain from any and all in-fighting which also includes bringing topics here from other blogs. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What's wrong with paying the public "Servants" the minimum necessary to keep them at their jobs?

    The money saved can be used to serve the public better, reduce class sizes. etc.

    Remember, while the private sector unions are out to stick it to the boss/investors/etc, the public sector union is out to stick it to the public, in the form of thinning the taxpayers' wallets while degrading public service.

    As for collective bargaining, whether or not to participate in it should be left to the choice of each worker.

    It has been mentioned that one of the big issues is that the unions give money to the Democrats. Well, this is an issue. This is because these workers are forced against their will to join these unions, which then take the money to use on political campaigns.

    Using money on political campaigns would be fine if people weren't bullied into paying the dues money used for this purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Silverfiddle said:

    "Patently false. Believe it or not, in many professions, grownup human beings talk with their bosses and management and bargain for all kinds of stuff, including pay raises. And they do it all without a union."

    Yes, and they get reality-based pay raises. Unlike when unions get involved... like in the auto industry.... where the pay soared past $70 an hour (compared to the fair market value of $20 an hour) and the quality of the work produced sank to the bottom for all cars sold in North America. And next thing you know, the auto companies collapse and you have Flint or Detroit Michigan.

    I wonder how many of the legions of laid-off auto workers would have rather kept their jobs and worked them at a fair wage instead of earning $80 an hour for a few years before the wage demands cause the factories to close?

    They can go to the South to find out where the factories that the unions kick out of the rust belt go.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regarding "Using money on political campaigns would be fine if people weren't bullied into paying the dues money used for this purpose." Good idea..these folks took action:
    "Fall 2009: Major companies and local chambers break from U.S. Chamber over its extremism. Apple, Exelon, Mohawk Paper, PG&E, PNM Resources, and the San Francisco and Santa Barbara Chambers of Commerce quit the Chamber over its climate change stance. “Extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics seem to increasingly mark the Chamber’s public stance on this issue,” said PG&E. Alcoa, Cisco Systems, Comcast, Dow, Duke Energy, Entergy, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, PEPCO, Royal Dutch Shell and Seventh Generation are among the other companies that broke with the Chamber on specific policy issues in 2009. Local chambers for Greater New York, San Jose, Eastern Connecticut, Greater Seattle, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Aspen also distanced themselves. The CEO of the Greater New York Chamber of Commerce bluntly stated: “They don’t represent me.”

    ReplyDelete
  13. BB: People in Wisconsin are forced to join unions against their will, and then the dues money is used for political purposes whether these dragooned members believe in it or not.

    In contrast. membership in any Chamber of Commerce is entirely voluntary. People can quit the organization easily.

    Can you say the same of people forced into unions who are in "closed shops"?

    Your illustration of people breaking with the Chamber only reinforces my point: the freedom of voluntary association is good here, why should it not be the same with unions and unwilling members?

    I'm glad you think that this is a "good idea", and I look forward to your support in future right-to-work discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  14. And once the "green jobs" scam finally collapses and there is no money to be made off of it, these companies will go back to not giving two figs about global warming, climate change of whatever they're calling it nowadays.

    Companies jumping on bandwagons where no open, apparent profit is in evidence is a sure sign of state-sponsored crony crapitalism.

    Finally, some of the technology companies you cite are actively helping China and Iran suppress the freedoms of their citizens, so I would not be citing corporations to bolster my case if I were you

    ReplyDelete
  15. Silver: The "green energy" thing is running into a brick wall here with Kennedy-type obstructionism.

    People trying to build windmills around here are running into loud kooks who don't want windmills within sight of their property.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dmarks: All that stuff, like light rail, is phony balony anyway. If it made economic sense, companies would be doing it already and people would be investing in it.

    And I love irony of latte liberals protesting windmills.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Silver:

    Isn't it hard for private enterprise to do light rail on its own? Private industry can't secure the rail corridors needed for this using eminent domain.

    As for the latte liberals, well that does apply to the Kennedy family's war against wind power. But the anti-wind-power forces in my area are probably more conservative/Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Even giving them the land, they still couldn't make money at it. Amtrack is not self sufficient. Even in Europe, where rail ridership is high, the railroads must be subsidized by government.

    If people care about the environment, then they should buy fleets of natural gas powered buses.

    ReplyDelete
  19. DMarks.."I'm glad you think that this is a "good idea", and I look forward to your support in future right-to-work discussions." C'mon out,
    closed shops have been illegal here since 1986.
    Totally GOP state, you would just love it! Nice views, horrible place to work. Run by corporations. They cut business taxes five years ago and raised property taxes on us old folks to make up the difference.
    Statehouse is a
    corrupt, one party playpen. C'mon out,
    it is your dreamworld...

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Totally GOP state, you would just love it! Nice views, horrible place to work. Run by corporations. They cut business taxes five years ago and raised property taxes on us old folks to make up the difference."

    Well, people seem to love your state in general. According to the 2010 census, Idaho posted a definite population increase during the last decade.

    Meanwhile, Michigan, a Democrat-run Blue State during most of that period.... a UAW stronghold in which most union members were forced to join.... actually LOST population.

    I guess those working people left the state to go to more worker-friendly places, like Idaho.

    Seriously, closed shops should be illegal everywhere. Why should giving a chunk of your paycheck to political organizations be a condition of work?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Equal time inregards to the media...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110222/ts_yblog_thecutline/wisconsin-protesters-want-fox-news-to-tell-the-truth

    ReplyDelete
  22. Out of the top 10 money contributors to political parties; 7 were corporations (which gave to the Republican party) 3 were union groups (which gave to the Democratic party).
    This is about money and votes for the 2012 election.
    These contracts with the unions have been negotiated and agreed to by the States.
    In the private sector if a contract is broken, the other side can sue for breach of contract. Can the government be sued? Maybe.
    The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.
    We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false. Yet Republicans still insist cutting taxes is the solution to our economic problems. I guess simple Math escapes the Republican thinking.
    It's time Republicans tell the truth; that we need more revenue to balance our government finances.
    I guess we could just destroy what prior generations have built (and were willing to pay for - they taxed themselves at twice the rate we tax ourselves - since 1983) but if we claim America has been the greatest country on Earth for the last 100 years, I'm not willing to destroy that.
    I am willing (and so should all Americans) to pay more to keep the high lifestyle my parents and grandparents fought so hard for, and paid so much of their hard earned money to, to preserve.
    Sure we could all make less money and be just another Tiwan (or other 3rd World country) with it's GREAT standard of living.
    I won't settle for that, and I don't understand my fellow Americans who seem to be happy with that lowering of lifestyle.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Tom:
    The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.
    We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false.


    I'm afraid your wrong.

    Go here and run the numbers yourself.

    It is not a government site, but he uses publicly available government statistics from GPO Access

    Contrary to Tom's claim, the data show that revenue did increase after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush II tax cuts. As a percentage of GDP, it flatlines for a few years after the cut, but then even that figure continued to climb.

    The data clearly show that revenue increased after each tax cut, and GDP also kept climbing. So clearly, the culprit in all of this is the spending.

    I will concede that there is a sweet spot in taxation. Cut beyond that and you spur no further growth. Tax too much and you stifle growth. So tax cuts are not always the answer.

    We can argue whether the tax cuts themselves spurred the growth or not, but it is a statistical fact that they resulted in more revenue and continued GDP growth.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Silver,

    If tax cuts brought in all that revenue, then why are we 14 trillion in debt? If it is spending, why didn't the Republicans know their tax cuts would not brimg in enough to pay our bills and either raise taxes, or cut spending? It is the height of political leadership incompetence, to allow the country to become so far in debt.
    I refer you to my article "Mondale Was Right" where I show with figures and graphs, that tax cuts are the culpret and have been the culpret before in American History. I guess we did not learn our lessons of our own History.

    We should remember that all the garbage talk between MSNBC and FOX is opinion, not news. To say they should be fair, or factual is just not part of their agendas.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Tom: If tax cuts brought in all that revenue, then why are we 14 trillion in debt?

    Because we've spent 14 trillion more than we took in.

    It is the height of political leadership incompetence, to allow the country to become so far in debt.

    I agree, and its the statists of all parties who have brought us to this point.

    I say we spent 14 trillion too much, you say we taxed 14 trillion too little. Regardless, I'm glad you at least acknowledge the validity of the government data.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sorry Silver,

    Republicans held the White House for 21 of 28 years, and the Democrats regained Congress in only 2006 and just lost the house to the Republicans.
    Point is, Republican policies (financial and otherwise) have been in control for decades.
    If reagn had not cut taxes nearly in half, our current debt would not be nearly as bad as it is.
    Republican policies have brought us to this sad point. It's more important how we get out of it, but you suggest both parties are equally responsible. The facts don't bare that out.
    It's hard to listen to Republicans cry spending cuts to the point of cutting off government, when they were not concerned about spending cuts for the last 30 years.
    And again, going forward, tax cuts are not the solution. As proven by the facts of the last 30 years.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @TOM: If reagn had not cut taxes nearly in half, our current debt would not be nearly as bad as it is.

    OK Tom, now you're going in circles. I just proved to you that he (along with a Democrat House) cut taxes and GDP doubled and and revenue increased.

    Is you point that we would have collected even more taxes had he not cut them?

    If so, it's an unprovable assertion, kinda like that unverifiable, impossible to measure fantasy number of how many jobs Obama has "saved."

    "Sorry Silver"

    Yes, your argument is indeed "sorry"

    Since 1960, Republican have held the senate for 16 years out of 50.

    In the time span you site, its been a gog/dem split of 16/14, hardly a dominant run like the dems had throughout the 20th century.

    Since 1960, Republicans have held the House for 12 years out of 50, and they've had the presidency for 28 of those years.

    In the time span you cite, gop held the house for 12 years, and the dems for 16.

    So again, I've given you facts to show your argument holds no water.

    You made some vague assertions about "gop policies," but provided no specifics.

    Yes, we have spent too much, but you have not proven how the dems get less blame than the repubs

    ReplyDelete
  29. Silver,

    I guess you forgot that our multi-trillion dollar debts did not start mounting until 1983, when Reagan cut taxes. So to go back to 1960, is a false argument.

    You really should read my "Mondale Was Right" post. It explains the facts of the multi-trillion dollar debt.

    GDP does not prove paying bills, or having a balanced budget, which we did not. So again you use a false argument.

    It's simple Math. We have not collected enough income (taxes) to pay for our spending, and Republicans (who had plenty of opportunity because they were in majority a majority of the time 1980-2008) did not cut spending.

    You seem to be afraid to put the blame where it clearly belongs. On Republicans.

    This conversation about the debt, is all about getting the facts correct, without spin. GDP explinations is a spin. Defining whose policies brought on this multi-trillion dollar debt, is a fact of History now.

    ReplyDelete
  30. From "dmarks said..." at February 21, 2011 3:47 PM

    2nd paragraph: "... Unlike when unions get involved... like in the auto industry.... where the pay soared past $70 an hour (compared to the fair market value of $20 an hour) ..."

    I looked this up on Politifact again: Somewhere between $20 and $30 of that amount is hourly wages in union shops. This varies depending on job and area and is acutally not far from the pay of non-uinion shops. The remaining amount claimed is justified by including 1) OT, vacation and benefits in hourly labor costs (not wages)and 2) health and medical benefit costs for both current and pensioned workers who are entitled to continued health benefits by contract. Thus, a lot of the labor costs included in this calculation are from rising health-care costs and including costs from retirees, whose costs were supposed to have been taken care of with funds set aside, weren't they? (I thought that was how pensions used to work)

    Unions are not the all-powerful ogres pushing the poor CFOs around that some folks would tell us. I do know of some instances of union bad behaavior, but union workers are more likely to suffer for this than the companies they are dealing with.

    I tend to go to Politifact because they do seem to call out both parties when they dissemble, and everyone between .

    The URL to Politifact is: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jan/13/spencer-bachus/big-three-wages-inflated/

    ReplyDelete
  31. Spinning? I bring facts, with links, you hurl unsubstantiated charges.

    "It's simple Math. We have not collected enough income (taxes) to pay for our spending,..."

    True statement. It could also accurately be restated as we spent more money than we collected in taxes.

    What you fail to take into account is what result the status quo (no tax cuts) would have produced. Are you assuming that even more taxes would have been collected if taxes had not been cut?

    You're free to assume that, but you have no way to prove it.

    As the owl on the branch in the Tootsie Pop commercial said, "The world will never know."

    Spending more than we collected in revenue is clearly the problem.

    As I pointed out to you in the last post, from 1980 to 2010 (the time period you specify)...

    Senate Control (years):
    16 GOP/14 Dem

    House Control (years):
    12 GOP/18 Dem

    Looks pretty bipartisan to me.

    The debt we now have was a bipartisan project. To say otherwise is to ignore the facts I just stated.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Silver,

    Your statement:

    "you hurl unsubstantiated charges"

    Is not true and I asked you to read the facts on my post, twice. You did not. Your mistake, not my unsubstantiated charges.

    Yes, you spun. You talked about a period going back to 1960 when the multi-trillion dollar debts did not even start till 1983 after the Regan tax cuts. A pretty poor debate tactic, purely dishonest.

    GDP is not a regulator of debt, nor can you define debt by GDP. Certainly we can have high debt even with GDP's that seem reasonable, especially if comparing GDP's that are decades apart. Anotheer dishonest tactic to try and show Republicans are not responsible for their misguided fiscal policies.

    You say you proved to me - you proved nothing to me. I'm sure you believe your financil spin, but it's not factual.

    I'm not going to reprint my post here, but your unwillingness to even read it shows a lack of interest in facts.

    Thanks for the personal attack, but hey sticks and stones.......

    The comment only shows your lack of character, not my lack of facts

    ReplyDelete
  33. No, Tom. It exposes your basic inability to debate a point. I restated my point within your stated timeframe, but I guess you missed that, which is convenient, because I destroyed your premise with facts.

    I never claimed GDP "regulated debt" or whatever you were trying to say.

    I think you need to go study up on basic economics. You are confusedd

    ReplyDelete
  34. For the fourth time, check out the graphs and facts in my post, but I know you will not.

    I will cease this conversation as it is a waste of time to debate with spinning, dishonest people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ah yes, citing government statistics and using facts to point out your wrong about who controlled government more is so sneaky...

    What's really a waste of time is you demanding I read your blog post but not providing a link.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tom said: "Yes, you spun. You talked about a period going back to 1960 when the multi-trillion dollar debts did not even start till 1983 after the Regan tax cuts."

    The tax cuts had nothing to do with the debts, as the revenue coming in INCREASED as a result. The debts had to do with the gross overspending in the bills Congress sent to him. Yes, Reagan was too weak-willed to veto the bad budgets.

    ReplyDelete
  37. MDAvis, there's also the benefits which push union compensation way above the hourly $ figure.

    Then you said;

    "Unions are not the all-powerful ogres pushing the poor CFOs around that some folks would tell us."

    Actually, when it comes to workers, they ARE ogres. Workers that refuse to join unions are threatened with lots of harassment and sometimes even volumes. Also, when it comes to states like Michigan, they are ogres that have devastated large cities by riving industries out.

    "I do know of some instances of union bad behaavior, but union workers are more likely to suffer for this than the companies they are dealing with."

    True. CEOs and fatcats have means and can survive, but the workers bullied by unions don't.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Tom said:

    "You really should read my "Mondale Was Right" post. It explains the facts of the multi-trillion dollar debt."

    Don't forget the fact that Clinton ran a deficit for every one of his 8 years (the Federal figures show no surplus) and increased the debt by a total of $1.6 trillion.

    Which happens to be the same sort of amount that Obama is piling on yearly. Clinton was grossly incompetent to run deficits for all 8 years (and yeah Bush was somewhat worse). But Obama is doing this, but 8 times as bad.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Good points, DMarks, but you're wasting your breath. Tom is hell bent on blaming republicans,and only republicans for the fiscal mess we are in.

    And you point about Obama is an excellent one. If Tom is mad about Reagan's recklessness, he must be incensed about Obama's quadrupling down on the profligacy.

    Are you ready to impeach Obama over his reckless spending Tom?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Silver,

    You are so dishonest, you ask:

    "Are you ready to impeach Obama over his reckless spending Tom?"

    Why would I? I would never suggest Reagan, Bush, or Bush be impeached over their reckless spending, or reckless tax policies. I just point out that after their 30 years of reckless policies, we are nearly bankrupt, yet you and Dmarks defend them. That's shows your extremism to the right. Defend them no matter what. How stupid.

    Clinton had an 8 year debt of 1.6 trillion? I wonder who ran up the other 11 trillion of debt befor Obama took office? Defend the Republicans at any cost.

    Clinton handed Bush what would have been a balanced budget, but the first thing Bush did was turn that to a deficit. Obama comes in with Bush's 1.2 trillion dollar debt, runs it a 1.7 trillion dollar debt, and you claim Obama is 8 times as bad. Where's the MATH? Obama does not suggest an over 9 trillion dollar deficit budget.

    Get back to dreamland guys.
    Enjoy your delusions.
    Continue to not even look at the figures, yet defend the dangerous actions of Republicans.
    I'm glad you approve of our current situation. I think it's irresponsible, but hey, right wing extremist (like you) want to see America fail. Although I don't know why.You should move to Libya where your type of extremeism is popular.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Tom is a perfect example of one who sets out to score cheap political points instead of simply searching for the truth.

    Tom, you aren't even listening. I have not defended republicans, and I am definitely not happy with the current situation. You seem to have a hard time with reading comprehension and keeping your facts straight.

    Pointing out that tax revenue increased after the tax cuts is not defending anyone; it's simply stating a fact to correct your false assertion.

    My pointing out that you are wrong on who "controlled government" is not defending anyone, just correcting another of your false assertions.

    Senate Control 1980-2010 (years):
    16 GOP/14 Dem

    House Control 1980-2010 (years):
    12 GOP/18 Dem

    It's not my fault you cannot face reality.

    Where's the math? Here it is. Have you gone to the CBO site?

    President Obama's proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502974.html

    So, I'll restate my question less harshly: Will you condemn President Obama's reckless profligacy (Done with a dem house and dem senate) the same way you condemn GOP spending?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Silver,

    Your charge that I do not provide a link, is beyond childish. As an expeerianced blogger you know all you have to do is click on my name to get to my blog and its posts.

    You simply are not serious and therefore a waste of time

    ReplyDelete
  43. ... said the man whose assertions crumbled in the face of facts.

    ReplyDelete
  44. DMarks - My main point is that using "Labor Costs" (including all costs related to all labor, both current and pension contracts) and calling that "wages" is dishonest and misleading. Unions are what got the benefits for their members, but health costs were probably the main force that drove the costs up; those costs are totally outside of union control. Unions did NOT negotiate wages up above $75 per hour, check the link for details of actual wages and wage comparisons.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Tom said: "yet you and Dmarks defend them."

    Actually, I readily acknowledge that the Republican presidents have been bad here. I've just been pointing out the fact that the Democrats have been grossly irresponsible also.

    I'm not defending any of them. Are you...?

    "Clinton handed Bush what would have been a balanced budget"

    This is all smoke and mirrors and "what ifs". The fact remains that Clinton ran constant deficits and handed George W. Bush a federal budget problem that was $1.6 trillion worse than when Clinton took office.

    "Obama comes in with Bush's 1.2 trillion dollar debt, runs it a 1.7 trillion dollar "

    Actually, Obama is 8 times worse than Clinton in this regard. That's a fact. Obama could have chosen to turn $1.2 trillion in debt into $0 debt. Instead, he chose to make it worse with billions of dollars in political payoffs falsely branded as some sort of emergency need.

    Do the math. Please.

    As for you question about the 11 trillion in debt that multiple Presidents chose to accumulate prior to GWB, how about the similar amount that ONE president is choosing to accumulate AFTER GWB?

    "Obama does not suggest an over 9 trillion dollar deficit budget."

    Let's assume 8 years of Obama. That's what you want, right?

    Assuming he runs over 1 trillion in deficits each year (something he loves to do, so far), that would easily give him a record of having added $9 trillion to the debt when he leaves office. Obama's debt record is already far worse than Bush's.

    I will repeat Silver's question:

    "So, I'll restate my question less harshly: Will you condemn President Obama's reckless profligacy (Done with a dem house and dem senate) the same way you condemn GOP spending?"

    ReplyDelete
  46. Sorry I'm so late Mrs. Hart.

    Just wanted to ask Dmarks why he supports scabs.

    The reason there are closed shops is to have everyone that benefits from the security and benefits of a negotiated contract also be required to pay the cost of enforcing it.

    The union has to to defend workers in open shops who refuse to support the union through dues. It costs money but Dmarks apparently believes people shouldn't have to help pay for what they benefit from.

    You've been very disingenuous on this subject Dmarks. I expect better from you.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Morally said:

    "Just wanted to ask Dmarks why he supports scabs."

    I don't use silly playground insults for working people. I support working people, and if lazy strikers throw away their jobs, I support the real workers who pick up the jobs the strikers threw away and wo actually do something productive.

    Especially when the strikers are trying to bankrupt the state, and the real workers do a better job, for less.

    I expect better of you than to insult working people.

    "The union has to to defend workers in open shops who refuse to support the union through dues."

    Then why not push for reform so unions don't have to support these people? Problem solved!

    "It costs money but Dmarks apparently believes people shouldn't have to help pay for what they benefit from."

    Actually, the solution is simple: open shop, and unions do not provide services to non-members. Deal?

    "everyone that benefits from the security and benefits of a negotiated contract"

    A point has to be made on this: when the union demands for pay way above the real value forces the factory to close, where is the "benefit"?

    I am in an area where one factory resisted the union thugs. It stayed open. One across the street is closed shop. Or was. The union forced the company to close and ship the jobs to North Carolina.

    Your union working for you. Yeah, it was in the private sector. Is a factory closing a real tragedy? Perhaps. But not compared to when schools close, or other damage caused by the naked greed of public-sector unions.

    We can't afford to let the public interest be damaged by greedy unions.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Your dishonest and hatred of unions shows Dmarks.

    I do support unions not being required to defend scabs. Do you?

    You only like Working People that are willing and happy to work for slave wages. What you advocate is a serfdom.


    I've seen the cases when factories shut down and move. Newsflash Dmarks: they were moving no matter what. The deals had been made. The factories then made goofball demands of employees in a propaganda effort to make it seem they tried. As well as send the message to the placesd they were going that they didn't care about employees.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "our dishonest and hatred of unions shows Dmarks."

    I am being quite honest. And yes, I dislike unions. I will tell you why.

    I am quite fine with the ACLU, Sierra Club, and other liberal political pressure groups, but not unions. Why?

    The ACLU and the others do not force people to give them money for their political causes. There is not ONE person forced to give one cent to them!

    The unions do this. They rely largely on forced "contributions" If the unions stopped bullying workers this way, I'd have a lot less problem with them. A lot less.

    Sorry, I side with the workers.

    A very bad example was a friend who was recently forced to join the SEIU. Her workplace had no vote: they found a trick around this. The SEIU is a champion of the working class? Yeah right. They caused her pay to go DOWN, while the money she gave went directly to political causes against her interest.

    Sorry, I side with the workers.

    "You only like Working People that are willing and happy to work for slave wages. What you advocate is a serfdom."

    Well, you are making this up, really. For one, workers are not slaves. For another, I advocate fair wages (whatever your imaginary concept of slave wages is). I advocate no serfdom. What you advocate is closer to that: with union bosses extorting money from workers against their will.

    Dmarks: they were moving no matter what. The deals had been made."

    Sorry, not in this case. The union forced the factory to move out. The wages paid there were way above the value of the work, and the union denied flexibility. In contrast, a fair-wage factory that protects its workers (union free) across the street stayed open.

    "s well as send the message to the places they were going that they didn't care about employees."

    Actually, by moving to a right-to-work state, the sent the message that they supported the right of workers to a fair wage, and to not be forced to join political organizations as a condition of employment. That's REAL respect. Why are you so afraid or worker free choice?

    Sorry, I choose to side with the workers.
    ----------------------

    Again, do you support reform to stop "The union has to to defend workers in open shops who refuse to support the union through dues."?

    ReplyDelete
  51. You deluded views on workplace rights further expose you for the blind shill you are Dmarks.

    Right to scab states are not that way because of some lie you read on an anti Working American website about workers being able to choose.

    They are that way to keep unions out. So management can fire without just cause. So that management can rid themselves of employees who demand proper safety equipment and procedures.

    Why do you want employees that care about safety to be fired without cause Dmarks? I thought you sided with workers.

    As for your question, I see no reason someone who refuses to support the organization that gets them better wages and working conditions.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Since unions are down to 8% of the workforce, I guess that means 92% of us are slave labor.

    Were the pro-union propaganda true, there would be no pay raises. And as to workplace safety, that is governed by federal law. No workplace may bypass OSHA regulations, union or no union.

    Not only are unions in sharp decline, their rhetoric is pathetic

    ReplyDelete
  53. As unions become less of the work force hourly wages and benefits have gone down in the work force.
    The class action law suits brought by non-union workers (WalMart etc) have gone up as union membership has gone down.
    Abuses by corporations have gone up as union membership has gone down.
    Although I'm sure those against unions see no corolation between abuses going up, as union membership goes down.
    Corporations would not think of taking advantage of their unorganized workers. HAHA

    ReplyDelete
  54. Moral said:

    "You deluded views on workplace rights further expose you for the blind shill you are Dmarks."

    The above paragraph was a baseless insult devoid of meaning. Please be civil and respectful, and stick to the facts.

    "Right to [work] states are not that way because of some lie you read on an anti Working American website about workers being able to choose."

    Actually, right-to-work is entirely about workers' rights.

    "They are that way to keep unions out."

    In right-to-work states, unions exist. However, they are made to be accountable to workers, since no one can forced to join them.

    "So management can fire without just cause."

    This is simply not true. There are plenty of laws in place against unreasonable firing.

    "Why do you want employees that care about safety to be fired without cause Dmarks?""

    I don't. You made this one up.

    "As for your question, I see no reason someone who refuses to support the organization that gets them better wages and working conditions."

    We are actually speaking of unions, which force plants to close and create a hostile combative work environment.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Silver said:

    "Since unions are down to 8% of the workforce, I guess that means 92% of us are slave labor."

    Yeah. "Morally" sure does like to use pejorative insults against working people. So far we have "Scab" and "slave". Are there any more?

    Silver, remember that at least 1/3 of that 8% who is in a union does not even want to be there. They are forced.

    "Were the pro-union propaganda true, there would be no pay raises."

    True. But in the real world, people get pay raises by earning them. Imagine that!

    "And as to workplace safety, that is governed by federal law. No workplace may bypass OSHA regulations, union or no union."

    Actually, unions can and do make the workplace more dangerous. We can start with the threats and violence faced by real workers who cross union picket lines.

    My best friend worked at a factory. It was unionized. There were two workers there who liked to physically assault other workers. The company tried to fire them. The union insisted that they stay.

    In my town, a school bus driver was caught assaulting handicapped children who could not even get out of their wheelchairs. Again, the school district tried to fire her, but the union made sure she kept her job, abusing children.

    "Not only are unions in sharp decline, their rhetoric is pathetic"

    Yeah, and few buy the baldfaced lies like when they say that increases "employee choice" to abolish the secret ballot in union elections.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Wages increase more in right to work states:

    Government figures show that over the past 10 years, inflation-adjusted per capita income in six right-to-work states increased at a 6.9% annual rate, while contracting at a 0.5% rate in six unionized upper-Midwest states. Many high-paying automotive and other manufacturing jobs disappeared from those union states, and foreign auto makers concentrated nearly all of their new investment in right-to-work states.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071304576160721023104538.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories

    Stagnant wages is also largely a myth. Contrary to what Tom says, benefits have gone up. Look at this chart. I know, it's from the dreaded Heritage Foundation, but the chart is from the St Louis Federal Reserve and it used Department of Labor statistics. While wages may have suffered a decrease in the rate of growth, real compensation that includes benefits has continued upwards.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704071304576160721023104538.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLETopStories

    Your union masters are screwing you, folks.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Give me the name of the company and union Dmarks.

    I think your friend is full of shit. I've been in many termination hearings as union rep. Here's how this is handled. You ask for two things. Counseling for the employees and what's called a "Last chance agreement." This puts the abuser in a situation that he has no rights to grieve or arbitrate anything. He's an "at will" employee. Management usually goes for this because it saves arbitration expense. If the guy makes it that's wonderful. If not, I did my job, company showed compassion, and bad employee is gone and can't sue union or employer.

    And Silver, you know that union wages are a standard that other companies have to use to get the best people.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Silver said: "Many high-paying automotive and other manufacturing jobs disappeared from those union states,"

    I've been at "ground zero" on this situation, watching this happen for years.

    Moral said: "And Silver, you know that union wages are a standard that other companies have to use to get the best people. "

    The best people? Like the extremely high paid Detroit teachers, union members, who do a very lousy job?

    --------------

    Anyway, again: yes or no: do you support a reform by which unions do not have to support non-members in a workplace in any way?

    ReplyDelete
  59. I answered your question already Dmarks. Will you answer mine? What is the name of the company and union your best friend suppossedly had this bad experience with?

    The truth is bad management practices are the enemy of business and the economy. Not workers asking to bargain for wages and benefits. I did a write up on this at Democracy Central but you no doubt would rather read right wing lies and propaganda to validate yourself than read the truth and find out you've been duped.

    And how much is a fair wage for Detroit teachers? Tough place to teach. Would you go there?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Silver practices his SPIN again,

    You did not mention that wages in the South were WELL below the wage average of northern workers to start with.
    When inflation is added to the equation-wage stagflation IS real.
    It is wrong that Southern auto production workers make the same, or even close to the equivilant of the Northern auto production workers, especially when compared to the hay days of auto workers of the 60's and 70'. Northern auto workers have given consessions since, to the auto companies to meet lower sales and production numbers.
    Benefits may be the same, but workers pay more for those benefits today.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Thank you Governor Walker:
    my right wing libertarian conservative nephew is a Wisconsin teacher, who like
    52% of WI teachers has a masters degree, teaches science as well as extra curricular academics. Due
    to being treated like some sort of criminal, my right wing libertarian conservative nephew turned into a Democrat within a week. Thanks, Gov.
    ..regarding unions. I was
    a manager for 40 years at both union and non union places, as well as a place that tried to unionize and a place which successfully
    de-unionized. So, I'm a bit
    neutral on the subject. But
    there would be no unions were it not for plain stupidity on the part of business...

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, TOM, you just compared apples, oranges... and landscaping...

    Yeah, doncha hate it when somebody spins by showing government statistics?

    Houses and the overall cost of living are also less in the south.

    As to the 70's, you mean the same 70's where auto workers were grossly overpaid and returned the favor by making crappy cars? Those 70's? Have you seen Detroit, btw? The city that liberalism destroyed.

    BB: If that's all it took, your nephew must not have been much of a conservative. If he's that delicate he belongs on teh left. You can have him. Tea partiers are made of sterner stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Silver,

    You are the good at spining statistics. Making them back up any "sky blue" idea you pronounce.
    Fact is we are worse off making Toyotas in America for a foreign owned company, than making our own cars for our own consumption. That also includes everything from towles to toys. A foreign owned America is what we have and why we are going broke. Thanks to the Republican policies you support. Congratulations on ruining America.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Better off than what?

    And please connect the dots on how having Toyota manufacture cars in America is destroying the nation.

    Do you think before you regurgitate the MSNBC talking points?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Typical Silver,

    Insult people instead of answering the issue.

    The one spewing talking points and spinning, is you.

    Simple, idiot. That profit goes to a foreign company that does not pay taxes to the U.S. Treasury.

    Of course you don't care about that, it's just fine with you that the policies you support have bankrupt America.

    It's Republicans who help (with their policies) sheild American companies from paying taxes allowing off shore tax breaks, and giving direct tax breaks to companies, who have not used those tax breaks to produce jobs. As the lying Republicans claimed those tax breaks would produce.

    ReplyDelete
  66. And the wages from building the cars go into the pockets of working Americans, not Japanese!

    Liberal concern for the working people is a lie.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Tom said:

    "Fact is we are worse off making Toyotas in America for a foreign owned company"

    Japan is or ally, not our enemy. Besides, even after the acceleration problem, it is an objective fact that non-union Toyota employees do a much better job than Big 3 union employees.

    Yes, America is served better by being able to drive superior automobiles built by better workers who aren't used as political cash cows by union thugs. And yes, built in America.

    "A foreign owned America is what we have and why we are going broke."

    What do you expect when unions drive manufacturers out of business, or out of the country?

    "Thanks to the Republican policies you support. Congratulations on ruining America."

    The policies mentioned above are actually Democratic policies. If you are actually speaking of opposition to free-and-fair trade, remember that Democrats in the White House and Congress open up trade just as much as Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Silver said: "And the wages from building the cars go into the pockets of working Americans, not Japanese! Liberal concern for the working people is a lie."

    Yes, I guess if you are not one of the 90% of workers who is union-free and thus able to do their job without being forced to write checks to Democratic political campaigns, the left does not consider you a worker anymore. Insults used so far include "scab" and "slave".

    ReplyDelete
  69. Tom said:

    "Simple, idiot. That profit goes to a foreign company that does not pay taxes to the U.S. Treasury."

    Tom, please refrain from kindergarten insults. People using them to bash working people in the abstract, as Morally has done, is one thing. But using them in this discussion goes against the spirit of this blog that Pamela wants to maintain.

    Anyway, let's fact-check your statement about Toyota not paying taxes to the US government.

    You are quickly proven wrong about this. I kindly suggest that you at least do some checking into such statements before making them in the future:

    From Yahoo Answers: [Toyota is] separately incorporated as Toyota USA here, and thus pays US corporate and California state taxes.

    Checking further, their massive tax expenditures on their income to the government every single year are detailed in their annual reports. I visited these on Toyota's web site. I suggest you do the same.

    "Of course you don't care about that, it's just fine with you that the policies you support have bankrupt America."

    I fail to see how a company that provides high-wage fair-value jobs to its American workers, high quality products to its customers, and pays its fair share in taxes to the government "bankrupts" anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Please name these workers that were forced to write these checks Dmarks. You still haven't named your "friend's" company or union either.

    Now I'll tell you this. There is plenty to attack unions for as they are currently operated. If you want to have an honest discussion I'd be glad to. Till then, I'll be happy to expose your untruths and fanatasies.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yeah DMarks! Stop spinning all those facts out there!

    Actually, DMarks is wrong about union members being forced to write checks. The unions use the coercive power of the government to have the money forcibly extracted from their paychecks. Companies (partners in crime) with unions will also automatically do this at the union's behest.

    Unions-Car Companies-government, now there is an axis of evil.

    "Detroit, the City Liberalism Destroyed."

    ReplyDelete
  72. Where is this law or government order requiring companies to deduct dues from checks Silverfiddle?


    From my experience it's negotiated or the employer does it as a convenience to employees.


    Where are you and Dmarks getting your information from?

    ReplyDelete
  73. I guess you missed the thread Dmarks, not to mention the History I have with Silver, HE is the insulting jack ass, to me. Always has been, and I see no reason to treat him better than he treats me.
    Silver proves he has no concern for his country when he supports the bankrupt policies of the Republicans, no matter how he tries to spin it.
    I suppose if you are working for WalMart, you don't have to make a payment to the union (which according to Dmarks is forced donations to Democrats) but then you have shitty wages, benefits, and an employer you have to sue in court to stop their abuses of you as an employee.
    Oh, and don't kid yourself, that cheap wage they pay you enables them to make large contributions to the Republicans.
    The corporation is more concerned in paying off politicians to gain favor like tax cuts, than helping their employees pay their bills by giving them a raise.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Moral said: "Will you answer mine? What is the name of the company and union your best friend suppossedly had this bad experience with?"

    It's not "supposed". And no I won't give out personal information like this.

    "The truth is bad management practices are the enemy of business and the economy."

    And unions force bad management practices, or often "bad management practices" means giving in to union demands that the company simply cant pay for.

    "And how much is a fair wage for Detroit teachers?"

    A fair wage is the minimum necessary to keep people there. Not some imaginary amount set by the union that has nothing to do with economic reality.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Tom said:

    "I suppose if you are working for WalMart, you don't have to make a payment to the union (which according to Dmarks is forced donations to Democrats)"

    Actually, that is according to reality. The union dues money is used to support political campaigns and efforts whether or not the workers want this or not.

    "but then you have shitty wages, benefits, and an employer you have to sue in court to stop their abuses of you as an employee."

    No one "has" to file frivolous lawsuits.

    As for the shitty wages, these are actually fair value. Low value work gets low value pay. The mom and pop small busineses pay even LESS. Stocking clerks, etc.

    Sam Walton himself started out this way. These are starter jobs. Unless you are really lazy and shiftless, you gain more skills and work yourself out of them.

    "Oh, and don't kid yourself, that cheap wage they pay you enables them to make large contributions to the Republicans."

    No one is forced to pay anything.

    "The corporation is more concerned in paying off politicians to gain favor like tax cuts, than helping their employees pay their bills by giving them a raise."

    Actually, the tax cuts (which are not a gift, but merely mean that the government doesn't steal as much) leave the company more money, so they can lower prices, hire more employees, and pay them more.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Morally said:
    And Tom, what about your previous claims about Toyota?

    Morally, about the situation with the government collecting union dues for people, look at the Michigan home health care worker scam:

    In Michigan, there was not an actual vote on this, whether or not to join the union. The workers are just simply forced.

    Then the government garnished their wages to funnel the money into the Democratic Party campaign coffers. The workers had no choice.

    It's pretty pathetic that the Democratic Party would lose a lot of campaign contributions if people weren't forced to give money to it against their will.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Dmarks: you are a liar. You made up the story about your friend.

    Nothing you say from here on is valid.

    Sorry Pamela. Delete me if you must but I stand by what I posted. Dmarks is a liar.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "Dmarks: you are a liar. You made up the story about your friend."

    Now you go from non-facts to false accusations. Or baseless insults.

    Wonder, though, why you didn't call me poopy-pants.

    Truth be told.... this really did happen, and it is one of many examples of bad workers that have their jobs protected by unions so they are a danger to other workers and the public. I didn't even go into the situation of the teachers caught sexually assualting children... and the NEA is right there to protect their jobs.

    "Delete me if you must but I stand by what I posted. Dmarks is a liar."

    The insult is preserved here, also.

    Remember what Pamela said: "Before you hit that publish button—ask yourself, “Is my comment civil and respectful?”

    Or is it true? No, you are just mad that the facts aren't on your side.

    Now back to serious discussion....

    ReplyDelete
  79. How do you know workers do not want these contributions to go to Democrats?

    Does any worker have a say in which party their company contributes to?

    Dmarks said,
    "Then the government garnished their wages to funnel the money into the Democratic Party campaign coffers."
    It's not the government forcing anything, the union (like any private company) makes donations to the part it thinks will represent their issues best.

    Demark said,
    "A fair wage is the minimum necessary to keep people there. Not some imaginary amount set by the union that has nothing to do with economic reality.

    A fair wage is what people can pay their bills on. Union wages are based on economic reality.
    When unemployment is at 10% corporations can get away with all sorts of abuses. People need to keep their jobs, even if that means putting up with abuses they would not, if they could go out and replace their current job, which they cannot in a high unemployment economy.

    I take it as an insult from you, that you think it's fine for Silver to insult me, but you chastise me for returing his insult to me. Ah yes, one sided judgments, like all your anti-union talk.

    Any individual story can highlight abuses of a union, but the unions have far out done for good any bad that always comes from any large orginazation. As with the American government.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Tom asked: "How do you know workers do not want these contributions to go to Democrats?

    1) They are given no choice. Come on, out in the real world, only a small % of people give to politics. Why would you expect this to be different among unionized workers?

    2) Between a third and half of unionized workers, who are forced to give to Democrats, don't like the Democratic Party. This includes Republicans, greens, and Libertarians. It should be painfully obvious that these people do not want to be forced to give to Democrats.

    The best solution is for the union to force no one to give any political money. Let the workers decide.

    "Does any worker have a say in which party their company contributes to?"

    No. But it shouldn't. The company is doing it with its own money. So outsiders should not be expected to have a say.

    If you choose to buy milk at a grocery store, do you actually think that you have a say in what the store does with the profits it earns? Its the exact same thing.

    That's arrogant and intrusive.

    "It's not the government forcing anything, the union (like any private company) makes donations to the part it thinks will represent their issues best."

    Actually, in this specific situation, the Michigan home health care scam, the government was collecting the "donations" against the workers' will. The govenrment is also involving in stealing money from teachers' pay checks to give to the union. This makes it harder for teachers to object. The unions managed to get the government to abuse workers' rights on the taxpayer dime.

    "A fair wage is what people can pay their bills on. "

    Not at all. A fair wage is based on the fair value of the work. Which might be high, which might be low. And if you are working at a low-value job that can't pay all your bills, no one should expect the company to give you gifts of unearned money.

    What you are talking about is welfare, a handout. Unearned money.

    "Union wages are based on economic reality."

    Only sometimes.

    "When unemployment is at 10% corporations can get away with all sorts of abuses."

    If this is true, then do you support abolishing forced unionization once employment gets back under 3%?

    "I take it as an insult from you"

    What insult?

    "that you think it's fine for Silver to insult me"

    No. I am not walling in the dirt of your 2nd grade playground war. Inatead of getting worked up over it, why not just fly above it all No insults of any kind?

    "Ah yes, one sided judgments, like all your anti-union talk."

    Yes. I side with the workers, whether or not union bullies like it.

    "Any individual story can highlight abuses of a union, but the unions have far out done for good any bad that always comes from any large orginazation."

    They've done far more bad. The extorted political funds... inexcusable. The destroyed auto industry is also pretty bad.

    ReplyDelete
  81. That's your judgment Dmarks, not a fact.
    Fact is 40 years ago only one worker in a household was necessary to pay the bills and heighten the families lifestyle, not to mention save a little. These days multiple workers in a family cannot even pay all the bills.

    Dmarks, what caused the 14 trillion daollar national debt we have?

    If you don't want to get into our war, then don't!
    Berate me, but not Silver? Don't take sides . that's being a jerk.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "That's your judgment Dmarks, not a fact."

    Which is? Perhaps you are referring to a fair wage. No, I a not making judgments here. I am leaving this decision up to the worker and employer. They are the ones who come to an agreement based on their own mutual decisions: the meeting point of what is fair to both. Outsiders, such as you or me, have no say. It is our business. So we should butt out. My saying that these wages are fair is merely my respecting these decisions of others as to what is fair or not. Decisions others make to their own situation. It's not up to me, or you.

    "Dmarks, what caused the 14 trillion daollar national debt we have?"

    Consistent, gross, and outrageously irresponsible spending by Congress and the Presidents... both Democrats and Republicans. And despite numerous accusations from you on one specific of this, I have never defended George W. Bush for his terrible record in refusing to veto bad budgets. In fact, I have pointed out Bush's record myself.

    There, I answered your question.

    Now would you please answer this one, on the "Fair wage" subject.

    Do you believe that everyone, regardless of gender, economic situation, race, age, etc....but with the same ability, seniority, qualifications, etc should receive equal pay for the same, or pretty much the same, job?

    "Berate me, but not Silver? Don't take sides . that's being a jerk."

    Tom, there's, what, 80 messages here? I honestly admit that I am not recalling one if his insults. If I've overlooked some huge ones there, yeah I've been remiss. Surely there are some burned in your brain. Point up one or two, and I will see what I do.

    ReplyDelete
  83. If you don't recall, why say anything in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  84. I responded to the insults that I read. I did not go back and count them all. Nor do I want to bother. But I'll take your word that he's let fly with a bunch of insults. ok?

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Morally Depraved: Where is this law or government order requiring companies to deduct dues from checks Silverfiddle?

    From MSNBC: The new Wisconsin law that limits public workers' collective-bargaining rights delivers big blows to public-service unions in two other ways: It ends the system for automatically deducting union dues from workers' paychecks...


    @ Morally Depraved: From my experience it's negotiated or the employer does it as a convenience to employees."

    You mean as a convenience to the union bosses so they don't have to send goons out to shake down workers.

    ... Like shooting fish in a barrel...

    ReplyDelete
  86. It was an accounting practice Silver.

    Convenience to members and clerical. Decent managers treat employees the way they'd want to be treated Silver.

    From Dmarks: "Truth be told.... this really did happen, and it is one of many examples of bad workers that have their jobs protected by unions so they are a danger to other workers and the public."

    You continue to evade because you know it is a lie. Exposing you was easier than I thought. You get your information from maybe two anti Working American websites so nothing you say is either original or surprising.

    Now keep on covering for bad managers that are too lazy or stupid to negotiate good contracts or enforce them.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Moral said:

    "You continue to evade because you know it is a lie."

    More hollow insults. Why not try to deal with the facts instead?

    "You get your information from maybe two anti Working American websites"

    I actually tend to avoid these type of websites. One website I do go to, is the National Right-to-Work site, which is very much pro-working American. However, I did not get these anecdotes from there: these came from close friends and family members.

    Yeah, it might not be original or surprising, since situations where unions protect the jobs of assaultive people or even rapists are common.

    Not to mention the situation where union leaders actively encourage violence against working people in strike situations.

    Come on people, if you don't
    ""Now keep on covering for bad managers that are too lazy or stupid to negotiate good contracts or enforce them."

    Oh, I agree on this. Managers, like at GM and Chrysler, who were stupid enough give in to pie-in-the-sky union demands for $60+ an hour were rather weak-willed and ultimately very destructive.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anecdotal stories are just that and have no bearing on wether, or not an orginazation has been good, or bad for society. Unions have been overwhelmingly good for America.

    Demark said,

    "who were stupid enough give in to pie-in-the-sky union demands for $60+ an hour were rather weak-willed and ultimately very destructive."

    Unions helped build the great middle class. Unions helped stop serious abuses on workers from employers. You already explained that to you a fair wage, is the cheapest wage possible. I guess you think Asian countries (where people work 12 hours a day and make 5 bucks a day) have the best living conditions and lifestyles. You should go and work in one of those countries.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Mr. Walker wants to run against Mr. Obama for president. He doesn't care that much about what happens here in Wisconsin, as long as he gets the "right kind" of publicity.

    Most of us here didn't know much about the guy until this mess came up. Now, most of us don't like him, and that's non partisan.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Morally:

    "You continue to evade because you know it is a lie. "

    Quit with the lame insults. I am not giving personal info. However, I can probably go to some web site and find identical stories.

    This is a real lame tactic. You don't like what someone says, so you make up the "lie" accusation. Grow up. This is pathetic.

    I know better than to read, say, Tom's and Fiddler's experiences and to suddenly say "you lie!" about them.

    Enough of this. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Tom said: "Unions have been overwhelmingly good for America."

    You've never been to Detroit or Flint.

    "Unions helped build the great middle class."

    No, workers did. Most of whom are not even in unions and have no problem making an honest wage.

    "Unions helped stop serious abuses on workers from employers."

    This is true in some instances, but unions have also become new abusers of employees.

    "You already explained that to you a fair wage, is the cheapest wage possible."

    No, not at all. I explained that a fair wage is the result of a mutual decision between worker and employer.

    If it were the cheapest wage possible, it would be zero or one cent.

    But actually for most jobs the natural, real value comes in above the minimum wage.... with a range going from there into the millions.

    So yeah, the 'cheapest wage possible' might have come from someone else's comment, but not mine. Be more careful next time.

    "I guess you think Asian countries (where people work 12 hours a day and make 5 bucks a day) have the best living conditions and lifestyles."

    Stuff costs a lot less there too. Actually, I know some people in these countries. And they view American condescension such as yours arrogant, or sometimes even racist.

    "You should go and work in one of those countries."

    I thought the "America love it or leave it" crap was a meme of the right wing. Now it see it from you.

    Anyway, Tom, here is the question again. Made simpler:

    Do you believe that everyone, regardless of economic situation, ....but with the same ability, seniority, qualifications, etc should receive equal pay for the same, or pretty much the same, job?

    What is your answer Tom?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Thanks for calling me a racist. It shows to all what a hate filled person you are. Besides being an idiot. The kind of idiot that says there were WMD's in Iraq, even though President Bush, the U.S. military (after a 2 year search of Iraq) Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Bush administration says there were not WMD's.
    The kind of person who says Clinton did not have a balanced budget, even though the leaders of the current Republican Congress says Clinton did have a balanced budget. They should know, they passed Clinton's budget as part of the Republican majarity at the time. Your delusions on all sorts of issues proves you are not smart enough to make statements on any issue, and certainly not be taken seriously for your opinions. That's OPINIONS, since you never give facts.
    So much for your lecturing on childish insults. You just give childish insults. Proving again you are not a serious person, just a blog trol.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Tom lied: "Thanks for calling me a racist. It shows to all what a hate filled person you are."

    No, I did not call you a racist. I was merely pointing out that "hate-filled" contempt for Asian workers is often feuled by racism. People who bash foreign workers are unwitting fellow-travelers with Pat Buchanan and the like. I don't think I've ever seen a racist comment from you.

    "Besides being an idiot."

    Hmm. How long before you call my poopy-pants?

    "The kind of idiot that says there were WMD's in Iraq"

    Actually, according to Snopes and other reports, between 50 and 500 were found.

    "even though President Bush, the U.S. military (after a 2 year search of Iraq) Rumsfeld, and the rest of the Bush administration says there were not WMD's."

    When politicians do not tell the truth, I don't let that erase facts. Stop lying about Iraq, please. I have given you the non-controversial links before documenting the Gulf War WND being found. So there is no excuse for ignorance. Either you have forgotten, or you are lying. I am thinking it is just major carelessness on your part.

    Check the facts, please. By the way, have you done so on Toyota?

    "The kind of person who says Clinton did not have a balanced budget, even though the leaders of the current Republican Congress says Clinton did have a balanced budget."

    For the fact that Clinton never balanced the budget, I used Obama's own treasure department, which indicates an ever-increasing debt under Clinton.

    Regardless of what people in Congress voted for or said, these are the facts: the Clinton surplus only existed in imagination.

    "Your delusions on all sorts of issues proves you are not smart enough..."

    Actually, I am well-informed on all of these issues. I check the facts. Unlike, for example, the glaring example of your claim that Toyota does not pay US taxes.

    "That's OPINIONS, since you never give facts."

    I've never given facts? OK. Prove it. Look at the Toyota example. How is my statement about their taxes non-factual?

    Next time you might consider taking a deep breath before making a post with false claims, including the "tom is a racist" related lie you started with.

    ReplyDelete
  95. DMarks: tom is impervious to facts and reason. He made this ignorant statement...

    "The biggest lie, which has put the Federal and State governments in the RED, is the lie that cutting taxes will spur growth and bring in more money to pay the bills.
    We have had 30 years of experience with this promise, and the facts prove that theory to be false."


    I proved him wrong (revenue in fact increased after each cut) with links to the government site.

    Tom just changed the subject and started screaming about increasing debt, refusing to see the logical connection between debt and spending.

    So when someone cannot even see something in black and white from a non-partisan source, there's not much hope.

    Even real-world examples do not sway him. Big union Michigan, big government NY and California are collapsing, but it's those stupid rednecks down south that are doing it all wrong according to tom...

    He's determined that no one is going to crack his fantasy bubble. His mentality is what brought Greece to its current state. In fact, he'd be out there throwing rocks and demanding his "fair share."

    ReplyDelete
  96. Lets see which lie should I believe from you wackos?
    The lie that there were WMD's to start a war, or the lie that there were no WMD's?
    Of course either way Dmarks is a liar beyond the scale of Bush and Rummy, and the U.S. military. Dmarks has his own deffinition of WMD's.
    I guess you'll have to tell the current Republican leadership, that Clinton never passed a balanced budget, because that's what they are telling America. I guess they say that in order not to be liars (like Demarks) since they (the Republicans)passed the Clinton balanced budget bill.

    Spin your words like your facts. You called me a racist, and I'm not surprised coming from a nut job like you. Go back to your parents basement and watch Star Trek, without waking them up. Then you can write about Star Trek on your blog, like you always do.

    So now let's invoke Pam's statement atop the comment section like Demarks did.

    Hey Pam, if Demarks is going to call me a racist, why don't you delete him? People who call me dirty, untrue names, I reserve the right to treat them the same way. You should remove them from your blog, or you should not be surprised that people respond in kind. That's fair.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Silver,

    You are a liar, and anyone reading this thread can see that.

    The point was (and I made it - and it is true) tax cuts did not bring in ENOUGH income to pay our bills, as promised by the Republicans.

    History has proven that to be the case, true.

    Pam, your regular commentors (Dmarks and Silver) are a nasty, name calling bunch. That's ok< I'm no prude, as long as I get to respond in kind.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...