If The WI Teachers/State Empoyees Get Screwed (PJ Related)

patrickredeyes

JimmyV wrote:

patrickredeyes wrote:

Yes he's doing what he said he would do when he ran.

I'm not convinced this argument rings true.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... gn-on.html


I have no problem with any union member being forced to contribute to their own retirement or health benefits package. To me that is just common sense. But taking away collective bargaining rights after never having campaigned on it is out of line.

Well at least we agree on something.

gfnk001

Yes I am a teacher who chose my profession. I'm proud of the job that I do every day and love going to work.
How dare you accuse teachers of "taking the summer off"! I have never taken a summer off in 15 years, and I have never met a teacher who has retired at the age of 55, but then again I teach in WV, where the average salary is barely $40K a year and I pay nearly 1/3 of my retirement with insurance that my doctors regularly tell me is worse than public assistance. The fact is the majority of teachers attend professional development, or continuing education courses, or additional training certification courses in the summer, many times on their own dime and as a requirement by their county. The teachers who "have summers off" are the shitty teachers who should be fired for not taking the responsibility of their profession as they should. I am not a fan of tenure after 3 years, with the mind set of milking the taxpayer's teet. Rather, I think teachers should be made to justify their merit on a regular basis. How that is accomplished is the national debate I have become part of along with other collegues of mine.

As for governors not paying bills, they all should, but since Walker ws the focus of the thread, he's the recepient of the remark.

And once collective bargaining is taken away from workers, then what rights do the workers have? That is not to say they need to demand more than they deserve, but at least maintain the cost of modern expenses. In WV teachers receive an across the board cost of living increase, but it doesn't take into account the vast economic differences within the state. I live in the most expensive part of the state, with the highest tax rate, highest growth in population, ect, and the "cost of living increase" does not cover the actual cost increase. But I moved to this area because it was the only area hiring teachers 15 years ago, and to this day still is one of the few that actually hires teachers on a regular basis.
So in conclusion to this, please don't accuse teachers of being over paid and underworked. When you compare average pay salaries between educators and other professionals there is tsill a major descrepancy between the pay rates. I am tired of people who have never set foot as a teacher in a classroom thinking they understand what it is we do. Because I now have to ask, what doyou do? I make a difference how about you?

krobbinz

Wow...to be making THAT much money!! I am in the wrong district!!
I also wish that the majority of my co-workers got into teaching because of summers off. I'd also like to find a job where we have 100% highly efficient, highly skilled, willing to put in more than 40 hours a week while being a public figure for the rest of their lives and not worry about burn out because they work 365 days a year.

Go Beavers

"Indiana's governor did the exact same thing Walker did but back in '05. He ended state employee collective bargaining when the state was $1.5B in the hole. Six years later the state has close to $1B in surplus and he is one of the most popular governors in the states history. The only difference was the lack of a media frenzy.

So basically Walker needs to pull the State out of debt. If he fails, his ass will be on the line ... although as mentioned by others, four years is a very long time for the collective memory of people.[/quote]"

Indiana's gov did the same without media frenzy because Indiana has a long history of not being supportive of unions and the state is filled with largely apathetic Republicans. People can praise the current gov. Daniels and hint at a prez run for him, but it should be noted that it's not too hard to run your agenda with a republican house and senate. Also, the state is a dump and scores lower on many indicators when compared to other states.
Wisconsin is definitely not Indiana and Walker will be gone in the next election.

youngster

I was watching Bill Maher friday night and he made a great point...

The Conservatives and Teabaggers in this country continue to preach that they want government to stay out of their lives and stop infringing on their rights. Am I correct? That is pretty much what I've been hearing.

Yet when a government figure such as Walker steps in and strips rights from hard working Americans, I hear no such protest from teabaggers or Republicans. I hear the opposite from them. Supoporting this act.

I bet if Obama tried to do this exact same thing, Walker and all other Republicans and teabaggers would be up in arms.

I didn't hear them complain too much when he extended the Bush era tax cuts.

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

Indiana's gov did the same without media frenzy because Indiana has a long history of not being supportive of unions and the state is filled with largely apathetic Republicans. People can praise the current gov. Daniels and hint at a prez run for him, but it should be noted that it's not too hard to run your agenda with a republican house and senate. Also, the state is a dump and scores lower on many indicators when compared to other states.
Wisconsin is definitely not Indiana and Walker will be gone in the next election.

The only part of Indiana that is a dump is the Gary region near Chicago. The rest of the state is quite pleasant.

And you are also right that it is easy to run your agenda and be successful with a republican house and senate ... although this is something that Obama had trouble figuring out when the cards were stacked in his favor.

MG79478

youngster wrote:

The Conservatives and Teabaggers in this country continue to preach that they want government to stay out of their lives and stop infringing on their rights. Am I correct? That is pretty much what I've been hearing.

Yet when a government figure such as Walker steps in and strips rights from hard working Americans, I hear no such protest from teabaggers or Republicans. I hear the opposite from them. Supoporting this act.

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

The problem is your news source. You are watching a left wing nutjob who wants to distort the true purpose of unions in this day and age. They are purely political in nature, and have no actual need these days. Eliminating unions can actually be viewed as reducing government involvement in our economy. Unions (and other liberal ideas) are responsible for the downfall of this country. The auto industry is a great example of how unions ruined an industry. True hardworking employees don't need a union, because if you were a true hardworking valuable employee, you can bargain for yourself. I guess you are referring to the hard working people of the auto industry who sit in the break room all day and can't be fired because the union, yet make six figures. Plus, most conservatives aren't in a union, so even if you viewed it as interfering, it doesn't affect conservatives. Lastly, don't forget about the rights of the many to not be unfairly taxed for a few.

I've tried to keep this short and only hit a few high points, I could write pages. I'm guessing that if you get your news from Bill Maher, your mind is not open to the short or long version. But if you don't understand why unions are bad, you're never going to understand the rest of the argument.

cajunkiwi

MG79478 wrote:

I am totally against growing government power, unless it directly benefits me

Way to be firm in your beliefs

zarocat

usamamasan1 wrote:

This thread sucks. At least everything other than what MG79478 said.

I disagree that what MG79478 said is the only good thing in this thread

Black Diamond wrote:

I am not spending my hard earned dollars on Wisconsin Tourism

I hope the band will put their money where Ed's mouth is... And choose a different locale as well...

Hopefully this gets worked out before ticket sales, because I would rather go to Canada if it doesn't

Yes, Canada. Actually, you would all rather come to Canada. You just don't know it yet ...

WaveRyder

MG79478 wrote:

But if you don't understand why unions are bad, you're never going to understand the rest of the argument.

I am on your side but unions aren't inherently bad.

Go Beavers

Jason P wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Indiana's gov did the same without media frenzy because Indiana has a long history of not being supportive of unions and the state is filled with largely apathetic Republicans. People can praise the current gov. Daniels and hint at a prez run for him, but it should be noted that it's not too hard to run your agenda with a republican house and senate. Also, the state is a dump and scores lower on many indicators when compared to other states.
Wisconsin is definitely not Indiana and Walker will be gone in the next election.

The only part of Indiana that is a dump is the Gary region near Chicago. The rest of the state is quite pleasant.

And you are also right that it is easy to run your agenda and be successful with a republican house and senate ... although this is something that Obama had trouble figuring out when the cards were stacked in his favor.

Maybe I should clarify "dump". Some areas might be pleasing to the eye, which Gary is not. But I mean dump, like literally dump your toxins and waste. It ranks at the bottom or near the bottom when compared to other states on many environmental rankings. It's interesting to have grown up there and now live somewhere just the opposite. And the whole argument that environmental regulations stifles business doesn't really fly, as the Northwest ranks high in environmental quality as well as being business friendly.

Indiana cities are so sprawling and car-centric, it's sad really. It's woven into the culture there. I do still love my home state, I just couldn't live there.

vant0037

MG79478 wrote:

youngster wrote:

The Conservatives and Teabaggers in this country continue to preach that they want government to stay out of their lives and stop infringing on their rights. Am I correct? That is pretty much what I've been hearing.

Yet when a government figure such as Walker steps in and strips rights from hard working Americans, I hear no such protest from teabaggers or Republicans. I hear the opposite from them. Supoporting this act.

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

The problem is your news source. You are watching a left wing nutjob who wants to distort the true purpose of unions in this day and age. They are purely political in nature, and have no actual need these days. Eliminating unions can actually be viewed as reducing government involvement in our economy. Unions (and other liberal ideas) are responsible for the downfall of this country. The auto industry is a great example of how unions ruined an industry. True hardworking employees don't need a union, because if you were a true hardworking valuable employee, you can bargain for yourself. I guess you are referring to the hard working people of the auto industry who sit in the break room all day and can't be fired because the union, yet make six figures. Plus, most conservatives aren't in a union, so even if you viewed it as interfering, it doesn't affect conservatives. Lastly, don't forget about the rights of the many to not be unfairly taxed for a few.

I've tried to keep this short and only hit a few high points, I could write pages. I'm guessing that if you get your news from Bill Maher, your mind is not open to the short or long version. But if you don't understand why unions are bad, you're never going to understand the rest of the argument.

It absolutely scares the shit out of me that anyone could construe Michele Bachmann as "trying to keep my freedom" (whatever the sam-fuck that means). She is an absolute lunatic.

Kraven

MG79478 wrote:

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was about? The modern day Tea Party has nothing to do with the plight of the people who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The American Revolution was about taxation without representation, not taxation as a whole.

vant0037

Kraven wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was about? The modern day Tea Party has nothing to do with the plight of the people who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The American Revolution was about taxation without representation, not taxation as a whole.

+1

Tea Party members are often also the same people who claim that this country was founded by Christians as a "Christian" nation. No doubt there were Christians or religious men integral to the founding of this nation, but spend a little time researching the origins, biographies and political philosophy of the founding band of brothers and you see its simply not true.

Anyway...good points. I'm sure there will be some self-righteous, pompous response about how I just don't know anything and I've been brainwashed by Keith Olbermann...that seems to be the general response from conservatives in this thread...

cajunkiwi

Kraven wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was about? The modern day Tea Party has nothing to do with the plight of the people who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The American Revolution was about taxation without representation, not taxation as a whole.

Reminds me of a guy on TV that was interviewed during a Tea Party demonstration... he said this was taxation without representation, because his views weren't being represented in Washington because the guy he voted for didn't win

MG79478

vant0037 wrote:

Kraven wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Which "teabaggers" are you refering to? The ones that helped get your freedom in 1773 or the modern day ones trying to keep it?

Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was about? The modern day Tea Party has nothing to do with the plight of the people who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The American Revolution was about taxation without representation, not taxation as a whole.

+1

Tea Party members are often also the same people who claim that this country was founded by Christians as a "Christian" nation. No doubt there were Christians or religious men integral to the founding of this nation, but spend a little time researching the origins, biographies and political philosophy of the founding band of brothers and you see its simply not true.

Anyway...good points. I'm sure there will be some self-righteous, pompous response about how I just don't know anything and I've been brainwashed by Keith Olbermann...that seems to be the general response from conservatives in this thread...

That's a very narrow view of history, conveniently chosen to fit your argument. In general the tea partiers in 1773 reacted to growing government intervention in their lives, I guess you can't see the parallel? I guess you don’t want to?

You bring up the Christian aspect out of the blue; I guess you have an axe to grind? I'm not going to take the bait, all I'll say is that you are not helping your crediblity.

cajunkiwi wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I am totally against growing government power, unless it directly benefits all citizens.

Way to be firm in your beliefs

Growing government to cater to a special interest group is bad, growing government for the betterment of all citizens is good. There is nothing "un-firm" about that statement. Maybe I should have said "all citizens", instead of "me", but an educated person would get the point. This is clear if you leave that quote in context about the patriot act. The funny thing is, you liberals keep nit picking the insignificant issues to avoid the significant issues. What you pulled from that paragraph is a perfect example.

cajunkiwi wrote:

Reminds me of a guy on TV that was interviewed during a Tea Party demonstration... he said this was taxation without representation, because his views weren't being represented in Washington because the guy he voted for didn't win

Wow, isn’t the daily show just great! Gotta love the FAKE news. I’m sure that one guy represented the entire movement. FYI, the majority of people's views are not being represented in Washington. Anyone remember healthcare being rammed down our throats without regard the will of the people?

cajunkiwi

MG79478 wrote:

cajunkiwi wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I am totally against growing government power, unless it directly benefits all citizens.

Way to be firm in your beliefs

Growing government to cater to a special interest group is bad, growing government for the betterment of all citizens is good. There is nothing "un-firm" about that statement. Maybe I should have said "all citizens", instead of "me", but an educated person would get the point. This is clear if you leave that quote in context about the patriot act. The funny thing is, you liberals keep nit picking the insignificant issues to avoid the significant issues. What you pulled from that paragraph is a perfect example.

cajunkiwi wrote:

Reminds me of a guy on TV that was interviewed during a Tea Party demonstration... he said this was taxation without representation, because his views weren't being represented in Washington because the guy he voted for didn't win

Wow, isn’t the daily show just great! Gotta love the FAKE news. I’m sure that one guy represented the entire movement. FYI, the majority of people's views are not being represented in Washington. Anyone remember healthcare being rammed down our throats without regard the will of the people?

I'm not educated? I guess that means my alma mater owes me a good chunk of change for the money I paid them in fees to get the degree I have hanging on the wall. My apologies that my college education wasn't thorough enough to teach me that "me" = "everyone." If only I attended the same English classes you did, then I would know that micro and macro are synonyms. Unless of course your own education was so super duper fantastic that you are so smart that you actually do represent "all citizens" - which, you know, is perfectly fine because it's really quite easy to get all 300 million Americans to agree on what exactly benefits them.

Except... to go back to your quote in its context... you say the PATRIOT Act benefits all citizens... if that's the case, then shouldn't it be a popular act? I mean, it stands to reason that if the PATRIOT Act is a good thing for everyone, then everyone should love it - right? Except... they don't love it. It's fairly unpopular. There are even plenty of Democrats pissed off that Obama wanted to extend it.

Though one could argue that something that benefits the people isn't necessarily popular. Maybe a lot of the people who are against the PATRIOT Act are protesting it simply because they don't like the government that passed it. Maybe they don't actually understand the act because they haven't read it. Maybe they're getting their information about the act from a biased news source that picks and chooses what it reports on to slant things with an angle. Maybe that news source is "nit picking the insignificant issues to avoid the significant issues." Maybe these people have been told things are in the act when they aren't and never were, and their belief that those certain things are in the act are what's causing them to be against it.

Wait... are we talking about the PATRIOT Act or the healthcare bill?

Since we're on the topic of the healthcare bill (thanks to my rough segue), it's not anywhere near as unpopular as you claim it is. While it's true that most polls show more people are opposed to the bill than support it, when the individual elements of the bill are broken up and presented to people on their own, between 60%-70% of the people support almost all of it (the only thing the public truly doesn't like is the individual coverage mandate, which is only one part of the bill). A large number of the people who say in polls they don't like the bill as a whole are the same people who think death panels are a real thing, so they clearly don't actually understand the bill at all... which is confirmed when the individual aspects are presented to them on their own and they say they support them (again, with the exception of the individual coverage mandate, which is unpopular on both sides of the aisle). So the bill was, as you put it, "rammed" down the throats of people who don't understand what's in it.

Those people may have been a little more educated about the bill had they tuned into that one show that had on as a guest a prominent Republican who helpfully bookmarked the pages of the bill that referred to the death panels... only to be completely unable to find any mention of anything resembling death panels when the host of the show asked her to point them out. Then again, since the show was The Daily Show and they only deal in "FAKE news" I assume they weren't watching it; they were instead watching the real journalists on a real news network like Fox News sit around and discuss how the death panels in Obamacare were going to kill off America's elderly.

Jason P

Go Beavers wrote:

Jason P wrote:

The only part of Indiana that is a dump is the Gary region near Chicago. The rest of the state is quite pleasant.

And you are also right that it is easy to run your agenda and be successful with a republican house and senate ... although this is something that Obama had trouble figuring out when the cards were stacked in his favor.

Maybe I should clarify "dump". Some areas might be pleasing to the eye, which Gary is not. But I mean dump, like literally dump your toxins and waste. It ranks at the bottom or near the bottom when compared to other states on many environmental rankings. It's interesting to have grown up there and now live somewhere just the opposite. And the whole argument that environmental regulations stifles business doesn't really fly, as the Northwest ranks high in environmental quality as well as being business friendly.

Indiana cities are so sprawling and car-centric, it's sad really. It's woven into the culture there. I do still love my home state, I just couldn't live there.

Hmm, interesting. Forbes has Indiana ranked 49th out of 50 for the greenest states.

Suck it, West Virginia!

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_mm_1017greenstates.html

Not much you can do about the car travel. Indy and Ft. Wayne don't suffer traffic congestion to the point that public transit is given much thought thanks to good roadway layout. Ft. Wayne is adding a network of bike and walk paths that may encourage leg power over horsepower so that's a start. Plus, with the hundreds and hundreds of small towns spread out throughout the state, the automobile will be the main source of transportation for some time to come. Plus, as you well know, most Hoosiers are not open to change ... hell, they are still complaining about the daylight savings switch.

Kraven

MG79478 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Kraven wrote:

Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was about? The modern day Tea Party has nothing to do with the plight of the people who dumped tea into the Boston Harbor. The American Revolution was about taxation without representation, not taxation as a whole.

+1

Tea Party members are often also the same people who claim that this country was founded by Christians as a "Christian" nation. No doubt there were Christians or religious men integral to the founding of this nation, but spend a little time researching the origins, biographies and political philosophy of the founding band of brothers and you see its simply not true.

That's a very narrow view of history, conveniently chosen to fit your argument. In general the tea partiers in 1773 reacted to growing government intervention in their lives, I guess you can't see the parallel? I guess you don’t want to?

You bring up the Christian aspect out of the blue; I guess you have an axe to grind? I'm not going to take the bait, all I'll say is that you are not helping your crediblity.

No what he is saying is that they believe in bullshit, and that them believing that this country was founded by Christians as a Christian nation is just as much a crock of shit as comparing themselves with the Boston Tea Party.

The Tea Party people are the ones making a stretch to compare their movement to the Boston Tea Party. They're the ones who have to prove how our nation is in a state that is comparable to a time when we were being ruled by a monarchy across the ocean with a Parliament that didn't have any representatives from the colonies.

Jason P

Advantage, Scott Walker ...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110615/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions;_ylt=AgC_tVI1LsA9rvLpFGLJmkis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZW1oNTRmBHBvcwM1MgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3Vfc19uZXdzBHNsawN3aXNzdXByZW1lY28-

I found this quote interesting:

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller said Walker and Republicans' push to enact the law instead cost the state money, resulting in "months of legal wrangling, unprecedented political divisiveness and millions of dollars of lost budget savings."