Battle of Madison

#76
#76
lawgator1 said:
There a number of differences.

First, the atc's went on strike. It was not an issue of demanding that they give up collective bargaining rights.

Second, there are far fewer atc's than there are teachers.

Third, the atc's didn't shut down a branch of the government over a particular piece of legislation.

I understand that the GOP wants to invoke the specter of Reagan firing the atc's for being unreasonable, but its a very weak comparison and the effort so far to try to cast this governor as Reaganesque has not really gained a lot of traction with anyone other than those would support him, anyway.
Click to expand...

Without the ability to go on strike, collective bargaining units have no power. Everyone knows what the threat of collective bargaining is, give us a contract we like and will agree to or we will walk.
 
#77
#77
droski said:
no it isn't. this idiocy that it's the number of banks that matter and not the total dollar amount is really one of the most pathetic arguments i've ever read here.

you have yet to have shown any proof of this.

sad.
Click to expand...

TARP is in the RED. Are you denying this?

Are you denying we did not purchase over one trillion in "toxic" assets?

Are you denying we did not loan trillions at 0% interest to the banks only for them to convert a substantial part of those loans into secured Treasuries at > 0% interest / direct loans to US government > 0% interest.

Sad indeed. But bham appreciates your big pimpin' Super-Keynes.
 
#78
#78
utgibbs said:
What is your assessment of that situation?
Click to expand...

Just like with the air traffic controllers, it would be incredibly painful at first, but it was done. Everyone who went on strike lost their job and never worked as an air traffic controller again.
 
#79
#79
oklavol said:
Just like with the air traffic controllers, it would be incredibly painful at first, but it was done. Everyone who went on strike lost their job and never worked as an air traffic controller again.
Click to expand...

It was very painful. I actually thought it was a nadir at the time, but then things got much worse.
 
#80
#80
utgibbs said:
TARP is in the RED. Are you denying this?

Are you denying we did not purchase over one trillion in "toxic" assets?

Are you denying we did not loan trillions at 0% interest to the banks only for them to convert a substantial part of those loans into secured Treasuries at > 0% interest / direct loans to US government > 0% interest.

Sad indeed. But bham appreciates your big pimpin' Super-Keynes.
Click to expand...

yes i am. it's billions in the black. unless you are including gm (not a bank) and fannie and freddie which are govt agencies.

treasuries and fannie and freddie debt are toxic assets? and i wish we had actually bought toxic assets because the govt would have made a fortune on them like pimco and others did.

absolutely. you are arguing that banks got OVERNIGHT loans and then invested that money in long term treasuries? please tell me this is what you are arguing.
 
#81
#81
20110219cc.jpg


Cartoon%20-%20Like%20Third%20Graders%20-%20ALG%20(500).jpg


fleebaggers.jpg
 
#82
#82
Rhetoric in Wisconsin is getting even uglier, Democrat assemblymen told female republican she was F'n dead. I'm sure he was sorry he said it as soon as it came out of his mouth, even sorrier after it became public.
 
#83
#83
Heard on Morning Joe that 3 GOP senators may be cutting a deal to vote with the 14 dems and kill the Gov's bill.
 
#85
#85
It really has been nasty from the union side. Wonder why Pelosi isn't flipping out like she did about the "tone" at town hall meetings.

Actually, I've seen very little media coverage portraying the anger/tone issue in this case. It was front and center in the town hall situation and the TP rallies. Is the union rage justified? expected?
 
Last edited:
#86
#86
KB5252 said:
Rhetoric in Wisconsin is getting even uglier, Democrat assemblymen told female republican she was F'n dead. I'm sure he was sorry he said it as soon as it came out of his mouth, even sorrier after it became public.
Click to expand...

Amazing how little coverage this has received.

The dude (who was recently busted in a prostitution sting) said he apologized after he realized someone had taken his comments personally :blink: I can see why he thought it was just idle banter...
 
#87
#87
volinbham said:
Amazing how little coverage this has received.

The dude (who was recently busted in a prostitution sting) said he apologized after he realized someone had taken his comments personally :blink: I can see why he thought it was just idle banter...
Click to expand...

This guy was busted in a prostitution sting? This is certainly the type of guy we should all want representing us.
 
#89
#89
shouldn't be illegal anyway but I guess that's a whole different thread :p
 
#91
#91
I just call that a Tuesday

probably not a good idea. Can you imagine what the lobbyists for the hooker's union could accomplish?
 
#92
#92
droski said:
it's really not that complicated. unions give money to politicians. politicians sign wage increases. you think it's a coincidence that the states with the largest pension deficits are also the states with heavy democratic congresses?
Click to expand...

Agreed. BUT you are only telling half the story. Corporations do the same. Only they expect legislation to be passed that is favorable to them.

Both practices are legalized bribery and wrong. Just wanted to point out that it wasn't one sided. All campaign contributions from Union AND Corporations should be illegal.

Sorry I'm late on the comment.
 
#93
#93
JayVols said:
Agreed. BUT you are only telling half the story. Corporations do the same. Only they expect legislation to be passed that is favorable to them.

Both practices are legalized bribery and wrong. Just wanted to point out that it wasn't one sided. All campaign contributions from Union AND Corporations should be illegal.

Sorry I'm late on the comment.
Click to expand...

i'm not seeing evidence of corporation contributions resulting in higher earnings.
 
#94
#94
droski said:
i'm not seeing evidence of corporation contributions resulting in higher earnings.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Their benefits come in the form of lower corporate taxes, taxpayer funded incentives, etc. Droski, you are smart. There's no way that you really think that corporations donate so much money to candidates of all political persuasions with no expectations.
 
#96
#96
droski said:
corporate taxes have not dropped
Click to expand...

In Wisconsin?

If you really think that unions are the ONLY ones that donate that expect something from those donations, no need to discuss further. Bias is too much of an obstacle.
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
JayVols said:
In Wisconsin?

If you really think that unions are the ONLY ones that donate that expect something from those donations, no need to discuss further. Bias is too much of an obstacle.
Click to expand...

they may expect something for the donations, but the question is what have they gotten? lowering corporate taxes is politically unpopular. giving teachers raises in economically good times is not.
 
#98
#98
JayVols said:
In Wisconsin?

If you really think that unions are the ONLY ones that donate that expect something from those donations, no need to discuss further. Bias is too much of an obstacle.
Click to expand...

The linkage is more direct in the case of unions. Unions also have a much larger footprint. They are consistently the biggest source of campaign funding.

There is a reason that collective bargaining was removed from Federal employees - by a liberal Democratic president (Carter). Hell, Obama ordered a pay freeze on federal employees. The guy in Wisconsin isn't even pushing for as restrictive rules.

Even FDR was against public sector unions. That should tell you something about the balance of power that occurs.
 
#99
#99
droski said:
they may expect something for the donations, but the question is what have they gotten? lowering corporate taxes is politically unpopular. giving teachers raises in economically good times is not.
Click to expand...

plus, lower corporate taxes pass through to price reductions due to competition. there is no competitive force for the union.
 
#100
#100
volinbham said:
The linkage is more direct in the case of unions. Unions also have a much larger footprint. They are consistently the biggest source of campaign funding.

There is a reason that collective bargaining was removed from Federal employees - by a liberal Democratic president (Carter). Hell, Obama ordered a pay freeze on federal employees. The guy in Wisconsin isn't even pushing for as restrictive rules.

Even FDR was against public sector unions. That should tell you something about the balance of power that occurs.
Click to expand...

I am not arguing pro union position. I said all the contributions should be illegal. I am not taking the position that it is ok for unions. It is niave to believe that corporations don't expect similar favors for contributions as do unions. I don't understand the moral perfection credited to corporations on here. They are the same as unions. Self-serving entities that look out for# 1. Neither are as American as apple pie as some want us to believe.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top