Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2...nsions/?refsrc=http://m.facebook.com/auth.php
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2...nsions/?refsrc=http://m.facebook.com/auth.php
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
I think the bigger argument has always been over the cost of health insurance, but this should not be overlooked. In either case, just chalk it up as yet another reason why you would be stupid to think that this is really about saving Wisconsin money.
Add on another day of state senator hide-and-go-seek, and my belief that my state is governed by children gets a little bit stronger.
I think the bigger argument has always been over the cost of health insurance, but this should not be overlooked. In either case, just chalk it up as yet another reason why you would be stupid to think that this is really about saving Wisconsin money.
Add on another day of state senator hide-and-go-seek, and my belief that my state is governed by children gets a little bit stronger.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
It shouldn't be too hard. They could (and would) easily blame that on Jim Doyle and every conservative in the state would eat it up. The fact that they haven't done this already makes me think that this must not be the case.
It shouldn't be too hard. They could (and would) easily blame that on Jim Doyle and every conservative in the state would eat it up. The fact that they haven't done this already makes me think that this must not be the case.
XYZ
Smoking in the selection room.
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
Didn't you see the signs in Madison? Anything less is a violation of human rights. Duh.
Didn't you see the signs in Madison? Anything less is a violation of human rights. Duh.
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
But the 14 year old part is really a distraction in this whole situation...are any of us really concerned that we'll see 10 year olds chained to sewing machines? That seems to be the old "hey look over there" tactic by the union supporters. The issue, to me anyway, is the governor of an economically strapped state wanting to renegotiate public union benefits that are far too generous and the union saying no way, no how. It could be argued that whoever negotiated those contracts for the state was not impartial and stood to benefit if the unions were to support a politician or political party going forward. I'd guess that is exactly the case, somebody closer to this would have to tell me who that was and what party was in charge of the state house when it transpired.
One other note from past posts...I don't agree that comparing college degree level alone is the way to make salary comparisons. The private sector has doctors, engineers, lawyers, stock brokers etc. There are a lot of social workers with masters degrees in social work...I wouldn't think it makes sense to compare their salary level with an MBA or JD grad and say "see, that proves public employees are paid less".
I get a feel for the comparison when I see a school district superintendent making between $150-200k. That salary equates to what level job in the private sector?
Overhear a conversation about somebody having 43 vacation days saved, being able to retire 4 months early but still get paid full salary because they have comp time etc. and you aren't listening to a private sector employee talking.
But the 14 year old part is really a distraction in this whole situation...are any of us really concerned that we'll see 10 year olds chained to sewing machines? That seems to be the old "hey look over there" tactic by the union supporters. The issue, to me anyway, is the governor of an economically strapped state wanting to renegotiate public union benefits that are far too generous and the union saying no way, no how. It could be argued that whoever negotiated those contracts for the state was not impartial and stood to benefit if the unions were to support a politician or political party going forward. I'd guess that is exactly the case, somebody closer to this would have to tell me who that was and what party was in charge of the state house when it transpired.
One other note from past posts...I don't agree that comparing college degree level alone is the way to make salary comparisons. The private sector has doctors, engineers, lawyers, stock brokers etc. There are a lot of social workers with masters degrees in social work...I wouldn't think it makes sense to compare their salary level with an MBA or JD grad and say "see, that proves public employees are paid less".
I get a feel for the comparison when I see a school district superintendent making between $150-200k. That salary equates to what level job in the private sector?
Overhear a conversation about somebody having 43 vacation days saved, being able to retire 4 months early but still get paid full salary because they have comp time etc. and you aren't listening to a private sector employee talking.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
If this was true, don't you think one of the 14 fleeing Senators would have made this argument? Don't you think Obama would have pointed this out? I mean, even the shrillest of the union flacks hasn't made this argument.
His headline is link-baiting to the extreme, especially when his argument boils down to "It's not pensions, it's wages." So he's just changed the names around. Good for him I guess, but it doesn't change the issue one bit.
Even if you take this paragraph as gospel, I still don't think it changes anything:
Yes, benefits have been expanded without the means to pay for them, and yes retiree health care is underfunded. Who's been saying anything different? This bill would stop the expansion of benefits without a means to pay for them, and provide for more funding for retiree health care. What's the issue?
Isn't it a bit like giving a terrible contract to a sports star? It's great for the star, but when the current contract expires, he's going to be paid a more reasonable amount.
If this was true, don't you think one of the 14 fleeing Senators would have made this argument? Don't you think Obama would have pointed this out? I mean, even the shrillest of the union flacks hasn't made this argument.
His headline is link-baiting to the extreme, especially when his argument boils down to "It's not pensions, it's wages." So he's just changed the names around. Good for him I guess, but it doesn't change the issue one bit.
Even if you take this paragraph as gospel, I still don't think it changes anything:
Yes, benefits have been expanded without the means to pay for them, and yes retiree health care is underfunded. Who's been saying anything different? This bill would stop the expansion of benefits without a means to pay for them, and provide for more funding for retiree health care. What's the issue?
Isn't it a bit like giving a terrible contract to a sports star? It's great for the star, but when the current contract expires, he's going to be paid a more reasonable amount.
Last edited:
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
Or not one that you are talking to. I know my mom was able to save up a lot of vacation days and even got a very nice bonus for retiring early.
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
And yes, I think it's possible the Dems overlooked this. In the current political climate, both sides engage in narrow group-think and stick to their talking points from beginning to end. Plus when you think about the simplicity of soundbites, the "we stand up for working families" jargon might actually be more effective than talking about deferred compensation. The general population doesn't do too well with nuance and math (just look at the pairwise arguments every year).
It is like that, but the owners don't strip away the player's right to negotiate contracts simply because one of them signed him to a terrible one.
And yes, I think it's possible the Dems overlooked this. In the current political climate, both sides engage in narrow group-think and stick to their talking points from beginning to end. Plus when you think about the simplicity of soundbites, the "we stand up for working families" jargon might actually be more effective than talking about deferred compensation. The general population doesn't do too well with nuance and math (just look at the pairwise arguments every year).
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
But a team can cut a player, most times, and the contract has an end date...whether he was trying to renegotiate this one or if a new one was starting in the near future, I don't think the governor was expecting the state union to say, "yeah, I'm second string now so I understand not getting paid superstar money".
Their response to this point has been to make it all about taking away their rights, wouldn't that have been avoided if the union had agreed to scale back compensation in light of the economic times?
It is like that, but the owners don't strip away the player's right to negotiate contracts simply because one of them signed him to a terrible one.
And yes, I think it's possible the Dems overlooked this. In the current political climate, both sides engage in narrow group-think and stick to their talking points from beginning to end. Plus when you think about the simplicity of soundbites, the "we stand up for working families" jargon might actually be more effective than talking about deferred compensation. The general population doesn't do too well with nuance and math (just look at the pairwise arguments every year).
But a team can cut a player, most times, and the contract has an end date...whether he was trying to renegotiate this one or if a new one was starting in the near future, I don't think the governor was expecting the state union to say, "yeah, I'm second string now so I understand not getting paid superstar money".
Their response to this point has been to make it all about taking away their rights, wouldn't that have been avoided if the union had agreed to scale back compensation in light of the economic times?
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
By all accounts, the union has agreed to all of his demands so long as they get the right to CB at another time. He balked. This is not about money he wants to break the union.
To keep up with the sports analogies this would be like the Twins offering Mauer a lesser deal but no chance to negotiate a different deal down the line. The Twins say it is about the money not the negotiating. He agrees to the lesser money but wants to be able to renegotiate at a later date. The Twins say no. The Twins go public saying he didnt sign because he is greedy and wants too much money even though he agreed to lesser money. what is this really about?
Walker is just like the baseball owners, he is trying to gain all the power in this himself. He has the right but it doesnt make him any less of a tool. Just say you think the union has too much power and they support your opponents so time to put them in their place. People would respect you more. As of now you are two faced lying weasel...and the funny thing is most politicians are so the fact that you stands out is quite an honor.
WWM,
Why would Forbes lie? Last I checked they are not a bastion for liberals or exactly on the side of the unions. (they are conservative and pro business) Why would they present false info to try and help a bunch of union workers against a conservative governor. Sorry, I am more likely to believe that a bunch of Dems were too stupid to realize how a pension works than I am that Forbes is going Huffington Post on the bit.
By all accounts, the union has agreed to all of his demands so long as they get the right to CB at another time. He balked. This is not about money he wants to break the union.
To keep up with the sports analogies this would be like the Twins offering Mauer a lesser deal but no chance to negotiate a different deal down the line. The Twins say it is about the money not the negotiating. He agrees to the lesser money but wants to be able to renegotiate at a later date. The Twins say no. The Twins go public saying he didnt sign because he is greedy and wants too much money even though he agreed to lesser money. what is this really about?
Walker is just like the baseball owners, he is trying to gain all the power in this himself. He has the right but it doesnt make him any less of a tool. Just say you think the union has too much power and they support your opponents so time to put them in their place. People would respect you more. As of now you are two faced lying weasel...and the funny thing is most politicians are so the fact that you stands out is quite an honor.
WWM,
Why would Forbes lie? Last I checked they are not a bastion for liberals or exactly on the side of the unions. (they are conservative and pro business) Why would they present false info to try and help a bunch of union workers against a conservative governor. Sorry, I am more likely to believe that a bunch of Dems were too stupid to realize how a pension works than I am that Forbes is going Huffington Post on the bit.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
The union did that and Walker still said no.
The union did that and Walker still said no.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
Just like the point I made on the other thread with the Economist, this is not "Forbes". It is a liberal fellow who has a blog on Forbes. That's a pretty huge difference. Say Sarah Palin writes an editorial that appears in the New York Times. You wouldn't say "The New York Times said..."
Besides, I'm not saying he's wrong per se, I'm saying all he's doing is playing around with words. So it's not "pensions" that are the problem but "wages". Umm, congrats? Because that's so much better...
Just like the point I made on the other thread with the Economist, this is not "Forbes". It is a liberal fellow who has a blog on Forbes. That's a pretty huge difference. Say Sarah Palin writes an editorial that appears in the New York Times. You wouldn't say "The New York Times said..."
Besides, I'm not saying he's wrong per se, I'm saying all he's doing is playing around with words. So it's not "pensions" that are the problem but "wages". Umm, congrats? Because that's so much better...
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
The point is that while you may be talking about the straight up numbers, Walker and his ilk are using fuzzy math to put forth a BS soundbyte. They are trumpeting the "taxpayer pays" angle which is a falsehood...much like his falsehood about negotiating with the Dems and the unions.
The money going in was salary they earned and had deferred, it isnt taxpayer money. That is the point of the blog to show the lie behind the argument.
You are right the deficit still exists but that isnt the point the author is making, he is saying the reasoning behind Walker's powerplay (the public reasoning) has no footing and is a red herring...just like every public comment he has made on this topic.
The point is that while you may be talking about the straight up numbers, Walker and his ilk are using fuzzy math to put forth a BS soundbyte. They are trumpeting the "taxpayer pays" angle which is a falsehood...much like his falsehood about negotiating with the Dems and the unions.
The money going in was salary they earned and had deferred, it isnt taxpayer money. That is the point of the blog to show the lie behind the argument.
You are right the deficit still exists but that isnt the point the author is making, he is saying the reasoning behind Walker's powerplay (the public reasoning) has no footing and is a red herring...just like every public comment he has made on this topic.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
It isn't taxpayer money? Who in the world do you think pays the salaries? The taxpayers. Call it whatever name you want to call it, but the taxpayer is still the one paying.
It isn't taxpayer money? Who in the world do you think pays the salaries? The taxpayers. Call it whatever name you want to call it, but the taxpayer is still the one paying.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
I think this exchange from the comments kind of illustrates what I'm saying:
He responds:
So again, even if we grant him his point, that it's really wages, not pensions (and I'm still skeptical) I don't think that changes anything.
I mean, great, it's the employees money. Guess what? Their employer (the state) is out of money! So something still needs to change.
I think this exchange from the comments kind of illustrates what I'm saying:
He responds:
So again, even if we grant him his point, that it's really wages, not pensions (and I'm still skeptical) I don't think that changes anything.
I mean, great, it's the employees money. Guess what? Their employer (the state) is out of money! So something still needs to change.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
100% of state employee income is paid for by the taxpayers? There are no grants? The athletic teams at Wisconsin public universities all lose money? And of course, if the greedy workers weren't stealing money from the taxpayers, all those jobs would be done for free. What color is the sky in this world?
100% of state employee income is paid for by the taxpayers? There are no grants? The athletic teams at Wisconsin public universities all lose money? And of course, if the greedy workers weren't stealing money from the taxpayers, all those jobs would be done for free. What color is the sky in this world?
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter
Lets spend more then we have to please to the unions, raise taxes, Scooby is happy to pay them, raise them so much Scooby has to live in a box, he doesn't mind as long as those unions get theirs. Scooby, you have collective bargaining? If you owned a business would you want your employees to have it?
Lets spend more then we have to please to the unions, raise taxes, Scooby is happy to pay them, raise them so much Scooby has to live in a box, he doesn't mind as long as those unions get theirs. Scooby, you have collective bargaining? If you owned a business would you want your employees to have it?
- Status