Very semantic and it has more to do with philosophy than anything. Did the corporation make the money because they succeeded mostly on their own merits or because they succeeded mostly on the benefits provided by society? This is one of those arguments where there is really no gray area. Either you believe that the money you make belongs primarily to you or primarily to the government.
If you really want to get technical, corporations owe their entire and continued existence to a legal framework established and perpetuated by a given government, suggesting that any wealth generated by said corporations is done at the government's pleasure.
Really, though, the idea that taxes are the government taking the money that it feels belongs to it is incorrect. Taxes are the prices of admission that we pay to take this wacky ride called Residency and Citizenship in the USA. When the government taps you for taxes, it's telling you that you need to chip in your fair share towards maintaining all the things that we collectively enjoy and that make our quality of life possible (and for corporations, makes their existence possible at all). We can, of course, have arguments about what services we should collectively enjoy, but existence in any kind of society larger and more advanced than the tribal level requires taxes.
And underneath this is a willingness to throw out what works for a novel economic theory that he does not understand. "Just because," I guess.
Trickle-Down Theory isn't novel. We've known it's bullshit for twenty years (and the British have known it's bullshit for a hell of a lot longer than that).
Trickle-Down Theory isn't novel. We've known it's bullshit for twenty years (and the British have known it's bullshit for a hell of a lot longer than that).
Trickle down is like faith healing. Doesn't work for shit, but the preachers can claim that the people it kills didn't believe hard enough.
If public sector unions shouldn't be able to use their funds to support a candidate, should public employees even be allowed to donate to campaigns? All of the money in discussion here ultimately derives from taxes, after all.
I'm not so much against them using the money they receive to donate or privately discussing political issues. I'm opposed to them using their positions to advocate political views based upon the fact that those positions are created by public dollars.
The military is always a special case, because of the very nature of what military service requires. Generally, we don't expect the same level of obedience from other public employees (possibly excepting police and firefighters).
Should it be that different? The role of teachers, garbage collectors, public health employees etc can be every bit as important as the military. In coups and takeovers, teachers are often executed right up there along with military officers. They are expected to teach children in order to take over the mantle of society from their elders. The military and police are required to make sure that the process continues. As a society, we decide what collective values we believe should be taught to children in order for them to do this and where the bounds between what the teachers do and what the parents do ends. Math, language skills, and science (barring the wackadoos that say science is meant to deceive us) are commonly agreed on.
I think a lot of parental responsibility has been abdicated to teachers as of late which is a shame.
I understand where you're coming from. In my opinion, however, it is important for members that public unions retain their collective bargaining power, even so far as to try to shape public policy (to the extent that unions can do that, of course; IIRC, there are limits under the NLRA as to what constitutes a valid reason for a strike).
I can see that. I believe NLRA does establish some very specific requirements but, as we can see from this particular set of protests, it doesn't prevent unified 'individual' action such as sickouts in some areas.
I think public unions have shown that they are too vulnerable to going beyond their powers. Limiting their abilities to negotiate, forcing a yearly vote, and making membership optional I believe are interesting steps towards changing public unions towards something more acceptable.
You're right. However it is a valid business tactic (although underhanded) to take it at a loss for such a time that you put your competitor out of business. Then you can raise the prices even higher because, hey, he's not in business anymore.
Though you've got to have significant capital to do that. And it doesn't work too well in a virtual setting like an MMO in that comic. Something something scarcity.
I wasn't aware of the fact that the individual states were competing against one another Highlander style.
There can be only one.
It's also why this is a stupid... thing.
If Wisconsin cuts of Illinois' head, does it become the Land of Cheddar Lincoln?
Should it be that different? The role of teachers, garbage collectors, public health employees etc can be every bit as important as the military. In coups and takeovers, teachers are often executed right up there along with military officers. They are expected to teach children in order to take over the mantle of society from their elders. The military and police are required to make sure that the process continues. As a society, we decide what collective values we believe should be taught to children in order for them to do this and where the bounds between what the teachers do and what the parents do ends. Math, language skills, and science (barring the wackadoos that say science is meant to deceive us) are commonly agreed on.
Yes, it should. It's not a matter of importance to society, it's a matter of what their jobs actually entail. The military only functions, at all, because of obedience, the chain of command, and the presentation to the outside world of a cohesive, unified front that will accept orders from the proper elected officials, regardless of politics. To a lesser extent, granted, this is true of police and possibly firefighters. The nature of all other kinds of public employment is just vastly different. Teaching does not become less effective because some teachers advocate a different curriculum, or because a teachers union throws its weight behind a particular candidate.
I can see that. I believe NLRA does establish some very specific requirements but, as we can see from this particular set of protests, it doesn't prevent unified 'individual' action such as sickouts in some areas.
I think public unions have shown that they are too vulnerable to going beyond their powers. Limiting their abilities to negotiate, forcing a yearly vote, and making membership optional I believe are interesting steps towards changing public unions towards something more acceptable.
Doing that, however, effectively kills the union. This is historical fact. If you believe in the importance of unions, they are unacceptable measures.
I'm sorry about my misguided attempt at humor. I believe in economics. I do not believe in unicorns. The world is round. The Earth orbits the sun.
Economists rarely say trickle down. That is more of a political pejorative. Of course, supply-side economics is pretty much synonymous. The argument I made was different from "trickle down". I did not argue for a cut for top earners or only the largest. It really depends what taxes were cut in Wisconsin on whether it would relate to "trickle down".
Tax cuts in economics does not immediately mean trickle up or trickle down. Depending on what tax is cut can result in very different incentives for different types of peoples and businesses. I'd look into which particular type it was but I was never making an argument for supply side arguments. All I was saying is that the intention of these tax cuts is to do these things. I made no claim that it would work. However, there is no absolute proof that it doesn't work in any way in successfully generating wealth. By claiming that there is, you are reaching.
Stuff that isn't really true about tax cuts for businesses.
From Wiki:
"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing across the board tax cuts or benefits to businesses, such as tax breaks, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population. The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
Tax cuts to large businesses/upper-class are precisely trickle down.
All I was saying is that the intention of these tax cuts is to do these things. I made no claim that it would work. However, there is no absolute proof that it doesn't work in any way in successfully generating wealth. By claiming that there is, you are reaching.
Spoiler'd for kinda big.
Cuts are generally not very effective at anything other than concentrating wealth upward.
Cuts are generally not very effective at anything other than concentrating wealth upward.
There are way too many differences to make direct comparisons, but it really is striking that a similar tax situation was behind the French Revolution.
The French monarchy bankrupted the nation paying for wars (in particular, funding the American Revolution). The French aristocracy and theocracy had exempted themselves from taxation, so the money had to come from somewhere. So, they put the screws to the independent merchants and the poor.
At the same time, those French aristocrats and theocracy were profiting hugely from the growth in trade and industrialization. They invested money in real estate - especially rent-producing properties and farmland - and made a killing exporting untaxed crops and finished goods. As a direct result, the cost for staple items and housing soared for the poor.
In a brief period, taxes and prices went up exponentially. People could not afford the basic necessities of life and got pissed. The small businessmen and non-noble factory owners responded by legal revolt and, when that was stymied, bankrolled a revolution. Nobles and clergy got their necks shortened.
There are a lot more differences between now and then, but it is interesting to look at root causes.
They didn't compromise a year ago when Walker wasn't in power and when this could have been put to bed before there was a problem. The last Governor didn't do his essential job of balancing the books and the unions didn't play ball when they needed to. Had they done so, this would never have happened and there would have been much slimmer support for elimination of collective bargaining.
It is an urgent issue and Walker is using the necessity of increasing on payments and healthcare to leverage his views on collective bargaining. Elimination of collective bargaining on its own as a political proposition dies on the vine. This particular packaging has made the issue much more tangible to audiences and provides many more talking points for those opposed to collective bargaining.
The point here is that they are compromising now, when they are being asked to. The governor may well be right when he says that the public employee unions need to agree to X, Y, and Z (things like paying for their pension benefits that the state can't cover). Whether he is right or not, the unions have agreed to do these things. Walker should just be saying 'ok, thanks! you guys are gonna help us pull through and you're great!' Instead he's saying 'oh man you dirty dirty unions are keeping me from balancing the budget! I need to take away your collective bargaining rights because clearly that's the problem!'
Collective bargaining isn't the problem here. The unions have collectively bargained to agree to Walker's budget plan. The only issue is that he isn't budging on the actual right to collective bargaining, and that's bullshit.
Cuts are generally not very effective at anything other than concentrating wealth upward.
There are way too many differences to make direct comparisons, but it really is striking that a similar tax situation was behind the French Revolution.
The French monarchy bankrupted the nation paying for wars (in particular, funding the American Revolution). The French aristocracy and theocracy had exempted themselves from taxation, so the money had to come from somewhere. So, they put the screws to the independent merchants and the poor.
At the same time, those French aristocrats and theocracy were profiting hugely from the growth in trade and industrialization. They invested money in real estate - especially rent-producing properties and farmland - and made a killing exporting untaxed crops and finished goods. As a direct result, the cost for staple items and housing soared for the poor.
In a brief period, taxes and prices went up exponentially. People could not afford the basic necessities of life and got pissed. The small businessmen and non-noble factory owners responded by legal revolt and, when that was stymied, bankrolled a revolution. Nobles and clergy got their necks shortened.
There are a lot more differences between now and then, but it is interesting to look at root causes.
I too was getting an "off with their head" vibe from his staunch obsession with getting rid of unions. I'm getting this vibe from all of the US lately, though.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yeah, it's pretty damn hard to say that collective bargaining is the root cause of the problem because allows them to ram through overly generous benefits and then hold the state hostage and refuse to compromise when they, you know, do compromise when the shit hits the fan.
The basic assertion of union busting is just so insane - "Unions are so powerful they'll gladly coerce such huge payments and unreasonable benefit from their employers that they drive them out of business! And lose their jobs!" - even if you view unions as completely parasitic (which would be stupid), they still wouldn't act that way, at least not at this point in the union movement.
Do we really need to explain to you why the military is a special case?
Ok here goes.
They have guns. And tanks. And planes. And bombs. And lots of other shit that kills people.
I did not realize any of those things. I could make an equally pointless comment about how "ideas are the force that kills" or that the willpower of a political agenda or that warfare is merely an extension of politics. However, we both in actuality know those things. So, choosing to view me as an idiot really is just offensive to me and I would rather not treat you that way in order to vent my frustration.
Yes, it should. It's not a matter of importance to society, it's a matter of what their jobs actually entail. The military only functions, at all, because of obedience, the chain of command, and the presentation to the outside world of a cohesive, unified front that will accept orders from the proper elected officials, regardless of politics. To a lesser extent, granted, this is true of police and possibly firefighters. The nature of all other kinds of public employment is just vastly different. Teaching does not become less effective because some teachers advocate a different curriculum, or because a teachers union throws its weight behind a particular candidate.
I meant the question more academically than anything. I don't believe it is about importance to society or what their jobs entail. I'm talking about similar responsibilities to upholding public trust.
Military education does not rely upon the chain of command to enforce it. As with the public school classroom, it is based upon respect of the knowledge(institutional) and experience(personal) of the teacher. Do all kids abide by those rules? No, but that is essentially the relationship that maintains classrooms. Of course the military and other public employees are going to be different. There is also clearly not the same need for discipline. I'd argue that they both have similar expectations to keep the public trust.
Teaching does not become less effective because teachers advocate a different curriculum. I did not say that advocating a different curriculum necessarily makes teaching less effective. In fact, this is important to the teaching process. Teachers committees created by the school board advocate particular curriculum. The unions are not an essential piece of the process. The process of curriculum should go through the committee and finally be decided by elected officials rather than negotiating with unions in the same contract that they negotiate wages or something along those lines. However, a teacher is not allowed to teach a different curriculum in the classroom. It should be expected that they follow the curriculum set down by higher.
Doing that, however, effectively kills the union. This is historical fact. If you believe in the importance of unions, they are unacceptable measures.
It may be history but that does not mean it is necessarily a historical trend. I don't believe in the 50 years of existence of public unions in America can you say that these actions will create an unwavering, historical repetition.
Hhahahahaha Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Rly are all AFTRA members, their relevant union.
Is AFTRA a public union? I don't see whats so funny. Of course, they are probably decrying private unions as well, so I guess that paradox would be hypocritical and funny. It is not irreconcilable to believe in private sector unions and to dislike public sector unions.
I too was getting an "off with their head" vibe from his staunch obsession with getting rid of unions. I'm getting this vibe from all of the US lately, though.
I'm not sure where any of this is going, but I do think America is headed for some sort of crisis, probably the violent kind. When people are no longer able to live their lives in peace and relative prosperity by doing their jobs, they get very angry. When leaders try to outlaw the expression of that anger - whether through protest or unionized bargaining - things get out of hand fast.
The biggest lesson from France in the 1790s, Russia in the 1910s, Germany in the 1930s and Cairo today is how fast things can get crazy when people get angry enough. With most revolutions, the space between everyone meeting peacefully in legislative assembly to discuss the problem and full-scale revolution are measured in weeks.
Again, not saying this will happen. Just that 2010s America is a far different and more volatile place than it was during the peace and prosperity years we grew up in. It would be a very good idea for politicians to realize this and stop doing things like trying to outlaw unions and restrict peaceable assembly, unless they want to go back to dealing with radicals who throw real and not metaphorical bombs.
Stuff that isn't really true about tax cuts for businesses.
From Wiki:
"Trickle-down economics" and "the trickle-down theory" are terms of political rhetoric that refer to the policy of providing across the board tax cuts or benefits to businesses, such as tax breaks, in the belief that this will indirectly benefit the broad population. The term has been attributed to humorist Will Rogers, who said during the Great Depression that "money was all appropriated for the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy."
Tax cuts to large businesses/upper-class are precisely trickle down.
You got me. I totally specified "large" businesses and the "upper class" in anything I said. Feel free to make your own edits to anything I say and then disagree with me. I'm sure it'll be very easy to find points to dissent on that way. I also clearly specified the large business portion MAY be true as of the tax cuts in Wisconsin. I just haven't looked at it. I made no argument that Wisconsin's tax cuts aren't trickle down. I am saying that tax cuts don't immediately mean trickle down. Also, focus on your quote where it says "across the board". I do know the tax cuts aren't across the board.
Since you're going to keep pounding this I'll just go look at what the tax cuts actually are.
Looks like a tax cut for businesses that move into Wisconsin, a tax cut for businesses that create jobs, an economic development incentive for new businesses, he also eliminated a tax on corporations contributions to healthcare.
Well... boy, that doesn't sound like across the board cuts now does it?
I did not realize any of those things. I could make an equally pointless comment about how "ideas are the force that kills" or that the willpower of a political agenda or that warfare is merely an extension of politics. However, we both in actuality know those things. So, choosing to view me as an idiot really is just offensive to me and I would rather not treat you that way in order to vent my frustration.
The point is the military is a fundamentally different nature than teachers or really any other sort of public employee. This is pretty obvious and it makes comparing the two completely inaccurate.
We restrict things like military uniforms at political functions because if history has shown us anything, its that there are disastrous consequences for any country that allows its military to meddle in its government.
Hhahahahaha Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Rly are all AFTRA members, their relevant union.
Is AFTRA a public union? I don't see whats so funny. Of course, they are probably decrying private unions as well, so I guess that paradox would be hypocritical and funny. It is not irreconcilable to believe in private sector unions and to dislike public sector unions.
Especially when the private sector union directly benefits the person in question, kinda like when Republican senators decry government health care while getting the best government health care in the country.
Do you really think that Hannity and the rest of those "personalities" will ever go into detail about how their own unions are good and how they benefit from them?
Hhahahahaha Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Rly are all AFTRA members, their relevant union.
Is AFTRA a public union? I don't see whats so funny. Of course, they are probably decrying private unions as well, so I guess that paradox would be hypocritical and funny. It is not irreconcilable to believe in private sector unions and to dislike public sector unions.
Especially when the private sector union directly benefits the person in question, kinda like when Republican senators decry government health care while getting the best government health care in the country.
Do you really think that Hannity and the rest of those "personalities" will ever go into detail about how their own unions are good and how they benefit from them?
I don't watch Fox News. I don't know what they're saying. However, I don't see in any problem in benefiting from a private union while demonizing a public employee union. This doesn't have to be a hate unions or like unions proposition. There are degrees including, foremost, private and public.
A unionized public employee, a teabagger, and a CEO are sitting at a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, then looks at the teabagger and says “Watch out for that union guy—he wants a piece of your cookie!”
Ah, this reminds me of my other experience with Unions (as noted before, I spent 2 years in a Union and have worked alongside Union members for nearly 8 years); the Canadian Theatre Agreement.
The CTA is a fairly unobtrusive little grey book (last edition I saw at least) that covers everything from how often performers should get breaks (based on length of the days performances/rehersals, but can be adjusted at the discretion of the group by vote through the shop steward), overtime (the fastest way to bankrupt a show? Keep the orchestra late 15 minutes a couple of times) and the fact you're not allowed to use the "casting couch".
Why? Because these abuses (not getting proper breaks, being kept regularly for overtime, being expected to fuck for a role) were commonplace. I'm not naive, I know all of the above still occur to varying degrees, but at least having guidelines in place gives people something to fall back on to protect themselves (or in an unfortunate after the fact situation, to go for possible recourse).
The CTA (and many such Union agreements) are simply this: putting "common sense" down on paper, because it is not terribly common that people in positions of power are sensible.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I too was getting an "off with their head" vibe from his staunch obsession with getting rid of unions. I'm getting this vibe from all of the US lately, though.
I'm not sure where any of this is going, but I do think America is headed for some sort of crisis, probably the violent kind. When people are no longer able to live their lives in peace and relative prosperity by doing their jobs, they get very angry. When leaders try to outlaw the expression of that anger - whether through protest or unionized bargaining - things get out of hand fast.
The biggest lesson from France in the 1790s, Russia in the 1910s, Germany in the 1930s and Cairo today is how fast things can get crazy when people get angry enough. With most revolutions, the space between everyone meeting peacefully in legislative assembly to discuss the problem and full-scale revolution are measured in weeks.
Again, not saying this will happen. Just that 2010s America is a far different and more volatile place than it was during the peace and prosperity years we grew up in. It would be a very good idea for politicians to realize this and stop doing things like trying to outlaw unions and restrict peaceable assembly, unless they want to go back to dealing with radicals who throw real and not metaphorical bombs.
I doubt it. The financial crisis was the perfect time for it and hey, where's the revolution? The only people marching in the streets were Tea Baggers. And they were marching for the very people who fucked us all.
Closed information loops and too much to lose. People aren't gonna be chopping off anyones head these days.
Even the Wisconsin Protests here are limited in scope and mostly caused by Walker over-reaching. If he'd stayed at killing the union slowly, no one would be marching.
Hhahahahaha Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Rly are all AFTRA members, their relevant union.
Is AFTRA a public union? I don't see whats so funny. Of course, they are probably decrying private unions as well, so I guess that paradox would be hypocritical and funny. It is not irreconcilable to believe in private sector unions and to dislike public sector unions.
Especially when the private sector union directly benefits the person in question, kinda like when Republican senators decry government health care while getting the best government health care in the country.
Do you really think that Hannity and the rest of those "personalities" will ever go into detail about how their own unions are good and how they benefit from them?
I don't watch Fox News. I don't know what they're saying. However, I don't see in any problem in benefiting from a private union while demonizing a public employee union. This doesn't have to be a hate unions or like unions proposition. There are degrees including, foremost, private and public.
Except that while benefiting from a private union and denouncing public unions may not be terribly hypocritical, granting that for the sake of argument, the big hatebags of the right froth against all unions, no matter their trade.
I doubt it. The financial crisis was the perfect time for it and hey, where's the revolution? The only people marching in the streets were Tea Baggers. And they were marching for the very people who fucked us all.
Closed information loops and too much to lose. People aren't gonna be chopping off anyones head these days.
Even the Wisconsin Protests here are limited in scope and mostly caused by Walker over-reaching. If he'd stayed at killing the union slowly, no one would be marching.
The financial crisis was almost a theoretical crisis. People lost a lot of money and many lost jobs, but for the majority the pain was spread out and slow - abstract numbers tied to investments went down. Culturally, people are accustomed to losing money in investments - crashes are seen as natural events like floods and earthquakes. It didn't hurt that the major villains - investment bankers - might as well have been elves for the extent that they exist in regular people's lives.
Had the financial crisis involved a direct cut in the paycheck of millions of working Americans, an increase in their rents, a sharp rise in the cost of food and gas, a loss of workplace rights or other immediate and direct hits, things would be way different. Getting pissed off at your boss or local representative and taking action is a lot easier than finding out if there's an investment banker hiding in your zip code.
This is why Wisconsin has resulted in protests. Shutting down those protests won't stop another. If history's any judge, that would be the tipping point between nonviolent and violent protests.
I did not realize any of those things. I could make an equally pointless comment about how "ideas are the force that kills" or that the willpower of a political agenda or that warfare is merely an extension of politics. However, we both in actuality know those things. So, choosing to view me as an idiot really is just offensive to me and I would rather not treat you that way in order to vent my frustration.
The point is the military is a fundamentally different nature than teachers or really any other sort of public employee. This is pretty obvious and it makes comparing the two completely inaccurate.
We restrict things like military uniforms at political functions because if history has shown us anything, its that there are disastrous consequences for any country that allows its military to meddle in its government.
The comparison is of the public trust they both are given - not of the nature of their particular jobs.
Veering from topic here but I want to clarify, military involvement in government is not inherently "bad" and, if we're using history as the measure, it is often the key to successful governments. (Roman Empire, Alexander and his contemporaries, the Assyrians, the British Empire and its colonies, and,most recently, Egypt) Sure, there are plenty of counterpoints to this but there is no blatant historical trend of tyranny as the result of reasonable military interference. I, of course, am strongly against it and think it leads to tyranny. However, it is not some sort of historical absolute. We live in a country that believes in elected officials, however, and we have been very successful.
Uniforms aren't allowed at political functions because members of the military aren't supposed to have an allegiance to a particular political persuasion. They are sworn to the Constitution.
The CTA (and many such Union agreements) are simply this: putting "common sense" down on paper, because it is not terribly common that people in positions of power are sensible.
This is the one undeniable justification for unions. I dare people on the other side of this issue to try to counter it.
Whats happening in Wisconsin is taking away all the common sense protections public employees have and asking them to trust that governor Walker will be sensible.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
"If I don't understand it, it can't be true."
If you really want to get technical, corporations owe their entire and continued existence to a legal framework established and perpetuated by a given government, suggesting that any wealth generated by said corporations is done at the government's pleasure.
Really, though, the idea that taxes are the government taking the money that it feels belongs to it is incorrect. Taxes are the prices of admission that we pay to take this wacky ride called Residency and Citizenship in the USA. When the government taps you for taxes, it's telling you that you need to chip in your fair share towards maintaining all the things that we collectively enjoy and that make our quality of life possible (and for corporations, makes their existence possible at all). We can, of course, have arguments about what services we should collectively enjoy, but existence in any kind of society larger and more advanced than the tribal level requires taxes.
And underneath this is a willingness to throw out what works for a novel economic theory that he does not understand. "Just because," I guess.
Trickle-Down Theory isn't novel. We've known it's bullshit for twenty years (and the British have known it's bullshit for a hell of a lot longer than that).
Trickle down is like faith healing. Doesn't work for shit, but the preachers can claim that the people it kills didn't believe hard enough.
Should it be that different? The role of teachers, garbage collectors, public health employees etc can be every bit as important as the military. In coups and takeovers, teachers are often executed right up there along with military officers. They are expected to teach children in order to take over the mantle of society from their elders. The military and police are required to make sure that the process continues. As a society, we decide what collective values we believe should be taught to children in order for them to do this and where the bounds between what the teachers do and what the parents do ends. Math, language skills, and science (barring the wackadoos that say science is meant to deceive us) are commonly agreed on.
I think a lot of parental responsibility has been abdicated to teachers as of late which is a shame.
I can see that. I believe NLRA does establish some very specific requirements but, as we can see from this particular set of protests, it doesn't prevent unified 'individual' action such as sickouts in some areas.
I think public unions have shown that they are too vulnerable to going beyond their powers. Limiting their abilities to negotiate, forcing a yearly vote, and making membership optional I believe are interesting steps towards changing public unions towards something more acceptable.
Ok here goes.
They have guns. And tanks. And planes. And bombs. And lots of other shit that kills people.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Yes, it should. It's not a matter of importance to society, it's a matter of what their jobs actually entail. The military only functions, at all, because of obedience, the chain of command, and the presentation to the outside world of a cohesive, unified front that will accept orders from the proper elected officials, regardless of politics. To a lesser extent, granted, this is true of police and possibly firefighters. The nature of all other kinds of public employment is just vastly different. Teaching does not become less effective because some teachers advocate a different curriculum, or because a teachers union throws its weight behind a particular candidate.
Doing that, however, effectively kills the union. This is historical fact. If you believe in the importance of unions, they are unacceptable measures.
I know you're not.
More like "oh, world, you are one cruel yet darkly humorous bitch."
It's yet more evidence that reality is in an arms race with The Onion.
I'm sorry about my misguided attempt at humor. I believe in economics. I do not believe in unicorns. The world is round. The Earth orbits the sun.
Economists rarely say trickle down. That is more of a political pejorative. Of course, supply-side economics is pretty much synonymous. The argument I made was different from "trickle down". I did not argue for a cut for top earners or only the largest. It really depends what taxes were cut in Wisconsin on whether it would relate to "trickle down".
Tax cuts in economics does not immediately mean trickle up or trickle down. Depending on what tax is cut can result in very different incentives for different types of peoples and businesses. I'd look into which particular type it was but I was never making an argument for supply side arguments. All I was saying is that the intention of these tax cuts is to do these things. I made no claim that it would work. However, there is no absolute proof that it doesn't work in any way in successfully generating wealth. By claiming that there is, you are reaching.
I just love how O'Reilly bashes unions in one breath, and then admits to how it helped him in the next.
Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury, raise the double standard!
From Wiki:
Tax cuts to large businesses/upper-class are precisely trickle down.
Cuts are generally not very effective at anything other than concentrating wealth upward.
Currently they are running a live chat with the author.
There are way too many differences to make direct comparisons, but it really is striking that a similar tax situation was behind the French Revolution.
The French monarchy bankrupted the nation paying for wars (in particular, funding the American Revolution). The French aristocracy and theocracy had exempted themselves from taxation, so the money had to come from somewhere. So, they put the screws to the independent merchants and the poor.
At the same time, those French aristocrats and theocracy were profiting hugely from the growth in trade and industrialization. They invested money in real estate - especially rent-producing properties and farmland - and made a killing exporting untaxed crops and finished goods. As a direct result, the cost for staple items and housing soared for the poor.
In a brief period, taxes and prices went up exponentially. People could not afford the basic necessities of life and got pissed. The small businessmen and non-noble factory owners responded by legal revolt and, when that was stymied, bankrolled a revolution. Nobles and clergy got their necks shortened.
There are a lot more differences between now and then, but it is interesting to look at root causes.
The point here is that they are compromising now, when they are being asked to. The governor may well be right when he says that the public employee unions need to agree to X, Y, and Z (things like paying for their pension benefits that the state can't cover). Whether he is right or not, the unions have agreed to do these things. Walker should just be saying 'ok, thanks! you guys are gonna help us pull through and you're great!' Instead he's saying 'oh man you dirty dirty unions are keeping me from balancing the budget! I need to take away your collective bargaining rights because clearly that's the problem!'
Collective bargaining isn't the problem here. The unions have collectively bargained to agree to Walker's budget plan. The only issue is that he isn't budging on the actual right to collective bargaining, and that's bullshit.
I too was getting an "off with their head" vibe from his staunch obsession with getting rid of unions. I'm getting this vibe from all of the US lately, though.
The basic assertion of union busting is just so insane - "Unions are so powerful they'll gladly coerce such huge payments and unreasonable benefit from their employers that they drive them out of business! And lose their jobs!" - even if you view unions as completely parasitic (which would be stupid), they still wouldn't act that way, at least not at this point in the union movement.
I did not realize any of those things. I could make an equally pointless comment about how "ideas are the force that kills" or that the willpower of a political agenda or that warfare is merely an extension of politics. However, we both in actuality know those things. So, choosing to view me as an idiot really is just offensive to me and I would rather not treat you that way in order to vent my frustration.
I meant the question more academically than anything. I don't believe it is about importance to society or what their jobs entail. I'm talking about similar responsibilities to upholding public trust.
Military education does not rely upon the chain of command to enforce it. As with the public school classroom, it is based upon respect of the knowledge(institutional) and experience(personal) of the teacher. Do all kids abide by those rules? No, but that is essentially the relationship that maintains classrooms. Of course the military and other public employees are going to be different. There is also clearly not the same need for discipline. I'd argue that they both have similar expectations to keep the public trust.
Teaching does not become less effective because teachers advocate a different curriculum. I did not say that advocating a different curriculum necessarily makes teaching less effective. In fact, this is important to the teaching process. Teachers committees created by the school board advocate particular curriculum. The unions are not an essential piece of the process. The process of curriculum should go through the committee and finally be decided by elected officials rather than negotiating with unions in the same contract that they negotiate wages or something along those lines. However, a teacher is not allowed to teach a different curriculum in the classroom. It should be expected that they follow the curriculum set down by higher.
It may be history but that does not mean it is necessarily a historical trend. I don't believe in the 50 years of existence of public unions in America can you say that these actions will create an unwavering, historical repetition.
Is AFTRA a public union? I don't see whats so funny. Of course, they are probably decrying private unions as well, so I guess that paradox would be hypocritical and funny. It is not irreconcilable to believe in private sector unions and to dislike public sector unions.
I'm not sure where any of this is going, but I do think America is headed for some sort of crisis, probably the violent kind. When people are no longer able to live their lives in peace and relative prosperity by doing their jobs, they get very angry. When leaders try to outlaw the expression of that anger - whether through protest or unionized bargaining - things get out of hand fast.
The biggest lesson from France in the 1790s, Russia in the 1910s, Germany in the 1930s and Cairo today is how fast things can get crazy when people get angry enough. With most revolutions, the space between everyone meeting peacefully in legislative assembly to discuss the problem and full-scale revolution are measured in weeks.
Again, not saying this will happen. Just that 2010s America is a far different and more volatile place than it was during the peace and prosperity years we grew up in. It would be a very good idea for politicians to realize this and stop doing things like trying to outlaw unions and restrict peaceable assembly, unless they want to go back to dealing with radicals who throw real and not metaphorical bombs.
You got me. I totally specified "large" businesses and the "upper class" in anything I said. Feel free to make your own edits to anything I say and then disagree with me. I'm sure it'll be very easy to find points to dissent on that way. I also clearly specified the large business portion MAY be true as of the tax cuts in Wisconsin. I just haven't looked at it. I made no argument that Wisconsin's tax cuts aren't trickle down. I am saying that tax cuts don't immediately mean trickle down. Also, focus on your quote where it says "across the board". I do know the tax cuts aren't across the board.
Since you're going to keep pounding this I'll just go look at what the tax cuts actually are.
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/20110201/APC0101/102010421/Wisconsin-Governor-Scott-Walker-signs-tax-cut-bill-into-law
Looks like a tax cut for businesses that move into Wisconsin, a tax cut for businesses that create jobs, an economic development incentive for new businesses, he also eliminated a tax on corporations contributions to healthcare.
Well... boy, that doesn't sound like across the board cuts now does it?
The point is the military is a fundamentally different nature than teachers or really any other sort of public employee. This is pretty obvious and it makes comparing the two completely inaccurate.
We restrict things like military uniforms at political functions because if history has shown us anything, its that there are disastrous consequences for any country that allows its military to meddle in its government.
Especially when the private sector union directly benefits the person in question, kinda like when Republican senators decry government health care while getting the best government health care in the country.
Do you really think that Hannity and the rest of those "personalities" will ever go into detail about how their own unions are good and how they benefit from them?
The piss and moan about union goons while enjoying the benefits of a union.
It's mindblowing how often I have to check the links that go with quotes to check if they're from the onion or not.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
I don't watch Fox News. I don't know what they're saying. However, I don't see in any problem in benefiting from a private union while demonizing a public employee union. This doesn't have to be a hate unions or like unions proposition. There are degrees including, foremost, private and public.
The CTA is a fairly unobtrusive little grey book (last edition I saw at least) that covers everything from how often performers should get breaks (based on length of the days performances/rehersals, but can be adjusted at the discretion of the group by vote through the shop steward), overtime (the fastest way to bankrupt a show? Keep the orchestra late 15 minutes a couple of times) and the fact you're not allowed to use the "casting couch".
Why? Because these abuses (not getting proper breaks, being kept regularly for overtime, being expected to fuck for a role) were commonplace. I'm not naive, I know all of the above still occur to varying degrees, but at least having guidelines in place gives people something to fall back on to protect themselves (or in an unfortunate after the fact situation, to go for possible recourse).
The CTA (and many such Union agreements) are simply this: putting "common sense" down on paper, because it is not terribly common that people in positions of power are sensible.
I doubt it. The financial crisis was the perfect time for it and hey, where's the revolution? The only people marching in the streets were Tea Baggers. And they were marching for the very people who fucked us all.
Closed information loops and too much to lose. People aren't gonna be chopping off anyones head these days.
Even the Wisconsin Protests here are limited in scope and mostly caused by Walker over-reaching. If he'd stayed at killing the union slowly, no one would be marching.
The financial crisis was almost a theoretical crisis. People lost a lot of money and many lost jobs, but for the majority the pain was spread out and slow - abstract numbers tied to investments went down. Culturally, people are accustomed to losing money in investments - crashes are seen as natural events like floods and earthquakes. It didn't hurt that the major villains - investment bankers - might as well have been elves for the extent that they exist in regular people's lives.
Had the financial crisis involved a direct cut in the paycheck of millions of working Americans, an increase in their rents, a sharp rise in the cost of food and gas, a loss of workplace rights or other immediate and direct hits, things would be way different. Getting pissed off at your boss or local representative and taking action is a lot easier than finding out if there's an investment banker hiding in your zip code.
This is why Wisconsin has resulted in protests. Shutting down those protests won't stop another. If history's any judge, that would be the tipping point between nonviolent and violent protests.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Veering from topic here but I want to clarify, military involvement in government is not inherently "bad" and, if we're using history as the measure, it is often the key to successful governments. (Roman Empire, Alexander and his contemporaries, the Assyrians, the British Empire and its colonies, and,most recently, Egypt) Sure, there are plenty of counterpoints to this but there is no blatant historical trend of tyranny as the result of reasonable military interference. I, of course, am strongly against it and think it leads to tyranny. However, it is not some sort of historical absolute. We live in a country that believes in elected officials, however, and we have been very successful.
Uniforms aren't allowed at political functions because members of the military aren't supposed to have an allegiance to a particular political persuasion. They are sworn to the Constitution.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This is the one undeniable justification for unions. I dare people on the other side of this issue to try to counter it.
Whats happening in Wisconsin is taking away all the common sense protections public employees have and asking them to trust that governor Walker will be sensible.