Wisconsin is just the first. Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and New York are coming. It's the fact that this problem is occuring all over the country that has the battle lines being so strictly drawn. Whoever wins this one will have a leg up in future conflicts.
I have to laugh at the irony of protesters carrying "Democracy Now!" placards quite literally attempting to shut down the democratic results of a democratic election, and the subsequent democratic process. Public opinion has to be against these freeloaders at this point. Hell, even Joe Klein is calling them all out today. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/18/wisconsin-the-hemlock-revolution/
It's the death throes of an anachronistic part of society... a part that spends money on politics at a huge level and STILL can't win popular opinion over. Good riddance. What's disturbing to me is that it might set a precedent for extra-legislative efforts when losers don't get their way. It already happens (and always has) at small levels, but multi-state, concerted efforts pushes us closer to anarchy or the backlash to anarchy. Either way it's no bueno. Ed O.
The more the public sees of this, the worse these freeloaders are looking. Their primary problem is that they don't have any real revenue stream outside of tax dollars. They can rant, rave, and even resort to violence, but when the Average Joe and Jane get home from a long day of work and see these images on TV, it isn't going to garner much sympathy, IMO. All that's being asked of them is to put a small fraction of their income into their own retirement, and to pay what amounts to half of the national average for their health benefits. Look at Sug's posts in this thread. He basically mocks the private sector and calls us out for what we've been for far too long ... SUCKERS. He's right. He's a freeloader, but right. Well, some states are saying no more. Unfortunately, this state has a ways to go, but it will happen here eventually.
Well said. Repped. These kinds of situations are why you have to be so very careful about giving benefits out. Once you give them, people will fight like grim death to keep them, legally or illegally.
Haha. It always amuses me that you consider letting somebody keep something they earned as a handout.
Exactly. The rules have changed. It's not that we want to reduce their benefits, but we simply can't afford them. We constantly hear how sharing the wealth is good because it helps everybody. What about sharing the pain? Why are they unwilling to tighten their belts? The bottom line is that this all out strategy in Wisconsin is a dumb one by both the unions (Trumka went there today) and the Administration (President Obama has directly sided with the unions). Average people look at Scott Walker's and Chris Christie's positions--asking teachers to contribute just a little to their pensions and health care--and then look at the vitriolic response of the public employees. Most people have to pay a good chunk of their health care, and don't have a guaranteed pension. It makes average people resentful, including average people who vote Democrat. Standing so firm is going to cost them votes in 2012.
Pretending that allowing me to keep my own money is some kind of manna from heaven reminds me of this jpeg:
Yeah, yeah, I know we'll never agree on that sort of thing. But do the union workers not earn it as well? What is the dividing line between union worker and say, nepotism of the rich?
I don't quite get it. My union job required me to pay much more than 7% of my health benefit. And they'd rather have 1500 of their members fired than take an effective 7% pay cut (in reality, just paying for the portion of their health care that just about everyone else, including the rich, have to)? What kind of union is that? As far as "banning unions", it's giving the members the ability to decide if their should be a union or not. Seems awfully democratic to me. If the people vote out the product, it goes away. If it's useful, it stays. Like New Coke, Woolworth's or Tower Records. No one had to ban them...they didn't provide enough for the cost, and went away.
How is your salary any more earned than your benefits? And why does cutting taxes on income (something they've earned) a good thing, but letting people keep their benefits (something they've earned) a bad thing?
They are keeping their benefits. They are simply being asked to help pay for them, instead of letting the taxpayers pay 100% of their public retirement. I'm not sure you understand what is going on in Wisconsin. Nobody is taking away their benefits. The answer in the past has always been to raise taxes. Well, the people of Wisconsin voted out the party of tax increases to pay for these ever-increasing benefits, and voted in the party of tax cuts. Now, the state public unions are being asked to make a small sacrifice to try and even out the budget. That they refuse should show the 80% of workers in Wisconsin who fund the 20% of public employees all that they need to know about them.
Making someone pay for something that was part of their compensations IS taking it from them. If they made them contribute 100% of their medical expenses, then they would be taking it away from their compensation. If the average employee is going to have to contribute 7% (a figure I got from this thread, so it could be wrong) more into these programs they are effectively taking that percentage of their benefits it away from them. Imagine being offered 100k job or 80k plus 25k in benefits and elect to take the latter. Now, a year later you are forced to pay 5k of those benefits. How is that not taking 20% of your benefits away? If they had taken option one and a year later their taxes were raised 5% you, maxiep and blazerboy would all be bitching about taxes going up. Or better yet, if you got a 5% TEMPORARY tax reduction, you'd be bitching when that TEMPORARY tax cut expired. Except you'd have to be making a hell of a lot more than 100k to see that temporary cut expire.
I'm not being very clear. I'll try to elaborate. If I choose to give to charity or I choose to hire my cousin, it's my choice. If I'm having a down year, I can stop giving to charity or can fire my inbred cousin. The choice is mine what I choose to do with the money I earn. If an elected official--who may no longer be in office or who I may never have voted for--says that to fulfill the promises they made to get elected that they have to raise my taxes, then its coersion. I have no choice in the matter. No matter how hard times may be for me, I have pony up. It's like Goodfellas where the owner of the Bamboo Lounge takes on Big Paulie Vario as a partner. [video=youtube;5ydqjqZ_3oc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydqjqZ_3oc[/video] We're now at the point where there's no more money. And it's a fuckin' shame.
No benefits are being taken away. They have the exact same benefits that they have always had. Now, if you're saying it is a 7% salary reduction, I agree, because that is what they are effectively being asked to do. To offset, the bill still allows them the right to collectively bargain wages and these benefits. How is this at all "taking away" their benefits? I'm not sure if you know what "benefits" we're talking about here.
You are asking for a tax increase of 7% on these people. Their wages are being lost by 7% so that everyone else can keep that money. Is my logic flawed?
