Wisconsin Thread

[Y2HH]

f***ing Illinois Bastard

 

[southsider2k5]

You are also a FIB, not a Cheesehead, so I didn't ask.

 

We prefer FIP in Indiana.

[NorthSideSox72]

You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall...

 

WI: Cheeseheads

IL: FIB's

LP MI: Trolls

UP MI: Youppers (sp?)

IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from)

MN: Puddle Jumpers

 

I can't remember the Indiana one.

 

[Y2HH]

You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall...

 

WI: Cheeseheads

IL: FIB's

LP MI: Trolls

UP MI: Youppers (sp?)

IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from)

MN: Puddle Jumpers

 

I can't remember the Indiana one.

 

Nope, never heard of these. I thought puddle jumping was an aviator term. :/

[southsider2k5]

You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall...

 

WI: Cheeseheads

IL: FIB's

LP MI: Trolls

UP MI: Youppers (sp?)

IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from)

MN: Puddle Jumpers

 

I can't remember the Indiana one.

 

Usually Hoosiers is good enough.

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually, the polls showed they did, until the GOP started all the fear mongering of death panels and "grandma's gonna die"

 

And Obama didnt get everything he wanted.

 

I remember it starting with a pretty large majority against it, especially once the insurance mandate came into play. But if you're going to go that route then I'm sure the increase in support against Walker in Wisconsin can be correlated to the increase in the "OMG! They're making us slaves with no rights!" fear mongoring from the left.

 

I'm just saying that that's a bulls*** argument to claim that in one instance a politician ignoring his constituents is bad, but in another instance it's good. It has nothing to do with debating the merits of the policy itself.

 

And i still want to hear Obama speak about this. Oh wait he can't. Because DEMOCRATS passed legislation to the same bargaining rights people are b****ing about. And that's been the case for 40 years. And man, those federal employees are so SCREWED. They have NOTHING compared to private sector employees.

[StrangeSox]

You aren't familiar with the standard insulting names used on other Midwestern states? As I recall...

 

WI: Cheeseheads

IL: FIB's

LP MI: Trolls

UP MI: Youppers (sp?)

IA: Iweejans (and no, I don't know what that name comes from)

MN: Puddle Jumpers

 

I can't remember the Indiana one.

 

"You are from Indiana"

[StrangeSox]

I remember it starting with a pretty large majority against it, especially once the insurance mandate came into play. But if you're going to go that route then I'm sure the increase in support against Walker in Wisconsin can be correlated to the increase in the "OMG! They're making us slaves with no rights!" fear mongoring from the left.

 

If the polling asked "do you support the HC bill?" it was probably less than majority support. If the polling asked "would you support a bill with [all major components of the bill]," it was strongly yes.

 

I'm just saying that that's a bulls*** argument to claim that in one instance a politician ignoring his constituents is bad, but in another instance it's good. It has nothing to do with debating the merits of the policy itself.

 

And i still want to hear Obama speak about this. Oh wait he can't. Because DEMOCRATS passed legislation to the same bargaining rights people are b****ing about. And that's been the case for 40 years. And man, those federal employees are so SCREWED. They have NOTHING compared to private sector employees.

 

There's a very big difference in that Obama campaigned on this for months, it was a large part of the Dem primaries, and Congress debated it for a year before finally passing. That's not at all like what happened in Wisconsin, where this anti-union bill (with plenty of other ridiculously bad provisions thrown in!) came out of nowhere and was going to pass with zero debate or negotiation if the Democrats had stayed.

[Soxbadger]

And i still want to hear Obama speak about this. Oh wait he can't. Because DEMOCRATS passed legislation to the same bargaining rights people are b****ing about. And that's been the case for 40 years. And man, those federal employees are so SCREWED. They have NOTHING compared to private sector employees.

 

Who cares what was done in the past, Obama had no part of it.

 

If you dont believe people have the right to unionize or to collectively bargain, that is fine. But to argue that because other states/govts have stripped away those rights, is a bad argument. At one point certain states allowed slavery. That didnt mean that it was right to have slaves, it just meant that some states were screwed up.

 

I always hope that people will look at the facts, instead of making "two wrongs" arguments. Who cares if the other side was wrong on a different situation, it doesnt mean that they cant be right on this situation. You arent bound by bad decisions, we thankfully have chances to make the right decisions.

 

I guess Im of the opinion that people should feel that they can change their mind and make the best decision, not worrying that some how it may go against something else that happened a year, 10 years or 100 years ago.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Who cares what was done in the past, Obama had no part of it.

 

If you dont believe people have the right to unionize or to collectively bargain, that is fine. But to argue that because other states/govts have stripped away those rights, is a bad argument. At one point certain states allowed slavery. That didnt mean that it was right to have slaves, it just meant that some states were screwed up.

 

I always hope that people will look at the facts, instead of making "two wrongs" arguments. Who cares if the other side was wrong on a different situation, it doesnt mean that they cant be right on this situation. You arent bound by bad decisions, we thankfully have chances to make the right decisions.

 

I guess Im of the opinion that people should feel that they can change their mind and make the best decision, not worrying that some how it may go against something else that happened a year, 10 years or 100 years ago.

 

It's important because it shows that despite not having those bargaining rights federal employees are doing just fine. They still get paid well. They still have great benefits. It's not the dire circumstances the democrats (and the union bosses who are clearly going to lose out on tons of money and power) are predicting will happen in WI.

[Soxbadger]

It's important because it shows that despite not having those bargaining rights federal employees are doing just fine. They still get paid well. They still have great benefits. It's not the dire circumstances the democrats (and the union bosses who are clearly going to lose out on tons of money and power) are predicting will happen in WI.

 

Just because something bad hasnt happened yet, does not mean that it wont happen in the future. Im sure that when Unions were arguing against child labor, etc, owners were saying that other factories have children and that they havent gotten hurt.

 

So what, its not a question of what is the impact, its a question of what do you believe. I believe that its not the govts place to say that people cant collectively bargain. If you believe that the govt should have the right to take away collective bargaining rights of individuals, so be it.

 

Regardless of whether unions have any impact, or whether collective bargaining does anything, I dont agree that the govt has the right to take it away.

 

id rather not let the govt be a runaway freight train that can take away the rights of individuals as they see fit. I know that I am in the minority here, but I stand up for peoples rights regardless of what side of the fence they are on. Its not a Democrat or Republican thing, its a people thing.

 

And if its a question of the govt or the people, Im going to side with the people.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Just because something bad hasnt happened yet, does not mean that it wont happen in the future. Im sure that when Unions were arguing against child labor, etc, owners were saying that other factories have children and that they havent gotten hurt.

 

So what, its not a question of what is the impact, its a question of what do you believe. I believe that its not the govts place to say that people cant collectively bargain. If you believe that the govt should have the right to take away collective bargaining rights of individuals, so be it.

 

Regardless of whether unions have any impact, or whether collective bargaining does anything, I dont agree that the govt has the right to take it away.

 

id rather not let the govt be a runaway freight train that can take away the rights of individuals as they see fit. I know that I am in the minority here, but I stand up for peoples rights regardless of what side of the fence they are on. Its not a Democrat or Republican thing, its a people thing.

 

And if its a question of the govt or the people, Im going to side with the people.

 

So you're ignoring 35-40 years of history and relying on the "well you never know what could happen" argument?

 

I'm all about individual rights. But in this case the unions have done more harm than good. They've forced the governments hands for decades. They've created the massive budget deficits a lot of the states are facing. Clearly they're not the only problem, and clearly government should be mindful of the sacrifices a lot of public employees make. But it's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way and I think that's exactly what Walker is trying to achieve, regardless of the merits of his tactics.

[StrangeSox]

No, they haven't. Plenty of states with little or no workers' rights have just as bad or worse fiscal problems as Wisconsin, plus they get the benefit of having some of the worst educational systems in the country.

 

You're acting like public workers are lavishly compensated, and that's a joke. Walker's trying to crush unions, sell off state assets for cheap and gut the public education systems because he's ideologically opposed to those things.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.themonkeycage.org/2011/02/the_r...ween_union.html

 

 

 

[StrangeSox]

What you should see on that graph is a line with a positive slope if the idea that unions are causing the deficits is true. Instead, we see a wavy line that would be pretty much a flat line if you removed NV as the extreme outlier sacked by a bad housing market (unless public unions are to blame for that?) .

[Soxbadger]

I'm all about individual rights. But in this case the unions have done more harm than good. They've forced the governments hands for decades. They've created the massive budget deficits a lot of the states are facing. Clearly they're not the only problem, and clearly government should be mindful of the sacrifices a lot of public employees make. But it's time for the pendulum to swing back the other way and I think that's exactly what Walker is trying to achieve, regardless of the merits of his tactics.

 

Correct me if im wrong, but no one made the govt agree to those deals, the govt voluntarily contracted them. Now I agree that the govt may have been stupid to make the deals, and that it may be wise for the Union to voluntarily amend those deals so that it doesnt force the state into BK, but that doesnt mean its okay for the govt to completely take away the unions rights, just because the govt screwed up.

[StrangeSox]

Correct me if im wrong, but no one made the govt agree to those deals, the govt voluntarily contracted them. Now I agree that the govt may have been stupid to make the deals, and that it may be wise for the Union to voluntarily amend those deals so that it doesnt force the state into BK, but that doesnt mean its okay for the govt to completely take away the unions rights, just because the govt screwed up.

 

Unions have agreed plenty of times to defer compensation to help cover budget shortfalls. They've certainly done that in Wisconsin, but Walker wanted absolutely nothing to do with negotiating. He, like the new governor down in Florida, seems to think being governor means being King of the State and allows you to run the state like you'd run a business.

 

The problems are governors and legislators never actually making long-term plans to pay for anything and, of course, the massive recession caused by Wall Street, not public employees' unions.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unions have agreed plenty of times to defer compensation to help cover budget shortfalls. They've certainly done that in Wisconsin, but Walker wanted absolutely nothing to do with negotiating. He, like the new governor down in Florida, seems to think being governor means being King of the State and allows you to run the state like you'd run a business.

 

The problems are governors and legislators never actually making long-term plans to pay for anything and, of course, the massive recession caused by Wall Street, not public employees' unions.

Made worse by them, but they were only part of the problem. You can also blame stupid consumers and home buyers, government actions, and a number of market factors.

 

[StrangeSox]

Eh I'm going to blame the massive bubble generated and then inflated by terrible derivatives and insurance tools invented by people who still walked away much, much richer after the whole mess. Without Wall Street creating those, those 'stupid' home buyers wouldn't have been approved for loans in the first place.

 

Either way it's naive to blame public workers unions for state budget shortfalls.

[NorthSideSox72]

Eh I'm going to blame the massive bubble generated and then inflated by terrible derivatives and insurance tools invented by people who still walked away much, much richer after the whole mess. Without Wall Street creating those, those 'stupid' home buyers wouldn't have been approved for loans in the first place.

 

Either way it's naive to blame public workers unions for state budget shortfalls.

I partially agree with your last sentence there. Pensions for state workers are a definite and significant problem in many states, and the Unions deserve some blame. Though honestly, I think the state governments are more to blame for agreeing to these things in their current form at all, and then worsening them via borrowing and other programs.

 

This whole Union debate is silly to me. You've got state governments wanting to take away bargaining rights - which just tells me they have zero ability to face their own employees. You've got unions with a death grip on pension models that need to go away, because they refuse to adapt. You've got liberals screaming about taking away rights (which I sort of agree with) and that taking away pensions and paying reasonably for benefits is some awful idea (which I don't agree with). And you've got conservatives wanting to just get rid of unions or do the closest thing they can to it, again, because they are too afraid to actually have a discussion (and because the corporate narrative has penetrated the GOP more so than the Dems).

 

Look, it should be real simple. Workers can organize however they want, in whatever way they want. Private businesses can choose to negotiate with them in any way the want, or not at all. Governments should line up their pay and benefits to look like private sector equivalence, and if unions want to talk about it, fine. Negotiate with them like a business leader might, give and take.

 

We are way overcomplicating this. Let unions organize in any way they like, let workers be part or not be part as they'd like, let employers go about is as they like (within legal and ethical guidelines of course). The WI law trying to PREVENT specific negotiating rights is stupid, but so is the practice of requiring certain work to be done by union personnel.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Most reasonable people can agree with the above post (imo).

 

I think if that most people would have agreed with Walker if he only wanted to modify pensions and make employees pay reasonably for benefits.

 

The problem is that Walker wanted to destroy the union, and I just cant get behind that. Id rather pay through the nose, than let the govt take away peoples rights. I know Im in the minority here but rights are more important than money.

[StrangeSox]

I generally agree with NSS there except the bit I see as right-to-work. That seriously damages a union's power thanks to free riders.

[Balta1701]

I think it's worth posting in reply that as a share of state budgets, the amount paid out in benefits + wages has declined on the whole in the past decade.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think it's worth posting in reply that as a share of state budgets, the amount paid out in benefits + wages has declined on the whole in the past decade.

 

 

Which is interesting because that pretty well corresponds to the big underfunding of pensions going on right now. It would be very interesting to see how that graph would look if it weren't biased and it actually included everything.

[StrangeSox]

LOL, Reagan:

 

"[...]where unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."