Political & Elections

BigG · Guru

RE: GOP Won't be Bullied

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

If your proposed race to the bottom occurs, you probably ought to join John Galt somewhere away from the hoi poloi. I doubt you will be missed as much as you think you will be. Some other engineer who actually likes people will replace you. We are all fungible, even those who are good at math.

My proposed race to the bottom? Virtually all my political suggestions are about increasing median income within the US (ie: probably the most important goal for the US economy).

Bogney · Senior Member

If your proposed race to the bottom occurs, you probably ought to join John Galt somewhere away from the hoi poloi. I doubt you will be missed as much as you think you will be. Some other engineer who actually likes people will replace you. We are all fungible, even those who are good at math.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:
If cops in big cities don't get pensions, how are they going to make enough money honestly to live and retire anywhere near where they work. Same question for teachers, firemen, etc. Why should they try to work in a City where they clearly cannot afford to live and cannot save enough to retire? Are we going to end up with private security for the rich, and handguns for everyone else?

Yeah, perhaps they can "save". A bunch of people other than cops/firemen/teachers have somehow figured out how to live in expensive places. Maybe they should figure it out?

The inevitable pension bomb doesn't really affect me. I'll just move if the taxation gets to onerous. I'd be worried if that was my sole retirement plan though.

Bogney · Senior Member

Just shovelling history, facts, and logic into the great dark Abyss. I guess it is b.s. to you because it did not involve numbers. If numbers actually predicted behavior and mathematic models actually accounted for all variables, maybe they would cancel out all other sort of reasoning. I don't see where that has happened yet except in the mind of the Abyss. The econmists who apparently thought so did not anticipate the ways in which their theories of risk spreading might be abused. Maybe they did not study enough history to see the need for caution and regulation and the likelyhood that speculative self-interest would ruin the economy, as it has many times in the past.

By the way, you have resorted to dogmatic tirades. You used to actually use reason and numbers to argue. Tom's example seems solid enough. You can't blame public employees for the State mishandling its pension obligations. If cops in big cities don't get pensions, how are they going to make enough money honestly to live and retire anywhere near where they work. Same question for teachers, firemen, etc. Why should they try to work in a City where they clearly cannot afford to live and cannot save enough to retire? Are we going to end up with private security for the rich, and handguns for everyone else?

Tom1944 · Senior Member

BigG- also do not be a pig. When you have big gains take some profits and protect your principal. When stocks get battered do not be afraid buy some back.

BigG · Guru

Can Wall Street handle investments for retirement reliably?

How many uncaught Madoffs are lurking in the wings?

But one has to invest somehow. Diversification is key, and not just among stocks.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Over 31 years I saved $21,000 in a retirement account. This account now has a value of about $140,000. During this same period of time I made pension contributions of over $100k and the State was expected to contribute $80k as their required contribution. If $21k grew to about $140K the $100+80k would have grown to over $1 million if invested.

Abyss · Senior Member

Tom1944 wrote:

Abyss- it is not to low. I showed you the calculation. With compounding over 30 years my account would be over $1 million with the State putting in 4% and me putting in 5.5%. I used the same average return that I achieved on my own. I also calculated what my pension would pay now and the average lifespan for someone my age. The money would take over 35 years to run out. Now here is the safeguard- some people would live longer so the State would cover that but you also have situations like a co-worker who died 6 months after retiring.

Again-I have contributed approximately $100,000 to the pension the State was to contribute 4% of my salary every year as their part of the pension. During this same period I also invested on my own. The total I invested equals 1/9 what my contributions plus the State contributions equal. That account is now valued at $140,000. My pension account would therefore be worth over $1 million if invested in the same manner. Clearly if the State kept its obligation my account would have enough to pay my pension for my anticipated lifespan.

At the end of the day my biggest problem is that the taxpayers are on the hook for a massive bomb that will absolutely decimate state budgets. Whether poor decisions were made in the past is irrelevant. No new hires should get pensions, it's clear that our government simply can't manage pensions reliably.

The numbers in your post make no sense, you'll have to be clearer.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Abyss- it is not to low. I showed you the calculation. With compounding over 30 years my account would be over $1 million with the State putting in 4% and me putting in 5.5%. I used the same average return that I achieved on my own. I also calculated what my pension would pay now and the average lifespan for someone my age. The money would take over 35 years to run out. Now here is the safeguard- some people would live longer so the State would cover that but you also have situations like a co-worker who died 6 months after retiring.

Again-I have contributed approximately $100,000 to the pension the State was to contribute 4% of my salary every year as their part of the pension. During this same period I also invested on my own. The total I invested equals 1/9 what my contributions plus the State contributions equal. That account is now valued at $140,000. My pension account would therefore be worth over $1 million if invested in the same manner. Clearly if the State kept its obligation my account would have enough to pay my pension for my anticipated lifespan.

Abyss · Senior Member

Tom1944 wrote:

Thank you for illustrating that pension math doesn't work. It's a value suck for taxpayers and absolutely ridiculous than any employees are given pensions in today's economic climate.

So contributing 4% of my pay as a retirement benefit is excessive? Many large employers, which the government is contribute matching to 401k's in excess of 4% of an employees salary. In fact RI studied a conversion to a 401k for new hires and determined that it would cost the State more than pensions for a minimum of 15 years.

We'll here is some quick math.

Lets say your annual disbursement is 50k/year upon retiring. Under a conservative 5% dividend rate that would require a principle of 1MM+. So yeah, I think that 4% number is far too low. Especially because taxpayers are *guaranteeing* your retirement.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Thank you for illustrating that pension math doesn't work. It's a value suck for taxpayers and absolutely ridiculous than any employees are given pensions in today's economic climate.

So contributing 4% of my pay as a retirement benefit is excessive? Many large employers, which the government is contribute matching to 401k's in excess of 4% of an employees salary. In fact RI studied a conversion to a 401k for new hires and determined that it would cost the State more than pensions for a minimum of 15 years.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

Thank you Abyss, I am right. Oh, wait, I forgot that nothing of any significance happened in the world before you were born. The present exists in a vacuum with no relation to the past, certainly to nothing before your birth, and probably to nothing before the last quarterly reports. Nothing can be learned at all about how to deal with the present by understanding how we got here, and there is no reason to worry ourselves about how human nature has revealed itself in the past. Does that sound about right to you, Abyss.

During most of my career in the public sector (mid -80's to present), private counsel questioned my decision to stay in the public sector rather than going for the real money at a private law firm. Some of my law school peers have become quite wealthy. I suspect that including my pension, I am in the middle of the pack economically, though I finished in toward the top my class academically. The economy turns, and somehow now I have turned into a greedy leech on the public teat. Private counsel have consistently billed far more for the same services provided to public entities, which is why I have a job at all. My job is neither unionized nor civil service protected. I am at-will but with a public sector salary and retirement - similar to a D.A.

Representatives of the people made promises to lure educated and experienced professionals into the public sector, and it will be the people's obligation to keep those promises. The government is not like a business because in fact the government can raise taxes to meet its obligations. The call to strip public employees of salary pensions and benefits is the public rejecting its responsibility to those people who have provided society with public service over the last three decades. That public service kept the roads paved, parks clean, libraries open, streets swept, put out the fires, and patrolled the streets - and did so effectively for the vast majority of people and locations in this country. Those services aren't free, and the public should pay what it promised for what has been provided.

If new deals need to be struck for new workers who will provide such services in the future, then just beware that the public will get what it pays for. If it does not like public service now, wait until less qualified persons are hired motivated by lower salary and minimal benefits. Taxes are not at, or near, historic highs. If taxes need to be raised to pay for the services provided by government, then the taxes should be raised.

Right leaning politicians cannot let any crisis go to waste, and attacking unions diverts attention from the excesses of their politcal supporters that have gutted the economy. Public and private unions should not be making concessions without management making greater concessions - both sides need to streamline for greater corporate profitability and public efficiency. Why should the CEO of any unprofitable company be paid millions?

Certainly, reform of government service is in order, and greater efficiency should be required, but the public needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Public sector jobs should pay well enough to attract talent. Private sector money led to raising of public sector salaries and benefits due to competition with the private sector for white collar talent.

As for blue collar jobs, you don't want cops looking to supplement their income, or for police depts. to be hiring thugs for cops because the pay is so low that educated men no longer apply. Cops have often abused the retirement system more than other groups, but that is partly the payback for the nature of the risk inherent in their job. Few other employees face the risk of death or serious injury as part of the job, except maybe those who work in unregulated factories like those before unions insisted on protecting the safety of the working person.

I would be happy to see a levelling of incomes in the U.S., more like Europe. Nothing about Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, or similarly situated male CEOs immediately suggests why they are worth the money that crony capitalism has paid them. Even entrepeneurs, who have a better claim to riches than CEO's hired to run existing businesses, are rarely irreplaceable or truly unique. If Larry Ellison had not been there, someone else would have done something similar. Entrepeneurs are the fortunate few who are capable and in the right place at the right time, or who steal someone else's idea and make money on it.

Casino operators get rich on the greed and stupidity of the public. So do unscrupulous financial professionals and sellers of useless anti-aging products. The amount of money wasted in this country rather than put to productive use is ridiculous. The money spent on gambling, faux rejuvenation remedies, tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, pornography, etc. could probably reduce the deficit significantly.

The rich have the financial and therefore political power, so they divert attention from the problem of wealth distribution by focusing on "greedy unions" which effect the middle and lower classes. That manipulation will work for a while until those classes realize that they are a majority that has been pitted against each other while the top 1% continue to live like kings for no apparent reason. The young will join them when they realize that only a very small percentage of them from the wealthiest families have any prospects for financial successl. If / when that happens, the sh@@ will hit the fan.

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 19th of February 2011 02:26:38 PM

Thank you for shoveling some more BS. I was wondering if you were gonna meet your quota. Clearly you have and I salute you for it.

1) Yes, we all know you are a lawyer. It's not something to be proud about.

2) I, for one, see no reason for CEO pay to be as high as it is for most American CEOs - I don't understand why you've even mentioned it.

3) Pensions are a ridiculous benefit that should not be offered for any new government hire in the US. Period. We don't have the money to do it.

Abyss · Senior Member

Tom1944 wrote:

Abyss- NJ is one of the States with the worst pension problem. It is not because it was an unworkable plan it is strictly because the State failed to meet its obligation for the past 17 years.
I have contributed approximately $100,000 to the pension the State was to contribute 4% of my salary every year as their part of the pension. During this same period I also invested on my own. The total I invested equals 1/9 what my contributions plus the State contributions equal. That account is now valued at $140,000. My pension account would therefore be worth over $1 million if invested in the same manner. Clearly if the State kept its obligation my account would have enough to pay my pension for my anticipated lifespan.

Also tell me what aspects of public pensions were due to public unions? These pensions existed well before there were public unions, include thousands of members that are not in unions and none of the terms were ever subject to or agreed upon by negotiations with the union. By the way I am not in a public sector union.

Thank you for illustrating that pension math doesn't work. It's a value suck for taxpayers and absolutely ridiculous that any employees are given pensions in today's economic climate.

Pensions and unions are inextricably tied because pensions are by far the most valuable concession that unions have gotten from the taxpayer (and therefore the most ridiculous). Any manager beholden to the taxpayers would take away non-unionized pensions for new hires immediately.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 20th of February 2011 02:52:07 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

Because it is not in the interest of the elites for anyone else to recognize this, and they control the message exept for the internet.

Jordcin · Veteran Member

BigG wrote:

Are European corporations "losing talent" or unable to hire good CEO's because of low salaries?

This will be remembered as the era when the wealth of the US was plundered and dissipated by a well connected elite for personal gain.

I wonder if they think they are going to seamlessly integrate into the coming communist Chinese hegemony elite?

Why do you think that more people don't recognize this?

Bogney · Senior Member

Thank you Abyss, I am right. Oh, wait, I forgot that nothing of any significance happened in the world before you were born. The present exists in a vacuum with no relation to the past, certainly to nothing before your birth, and probably to nothing before the last quarterly reports. Nothing can be learned at all about how to deal with the present by understanding how we got here, and there is no reason to worry ourselves about how human nature has revealed itself in the past. Does that sound about right to you, Abyss.

During most of my career in the public sector (mid -80's to present), private counsel questioned my decision to stay in the public sector rather than going for the real money at a private law firm. Some of my law school peers have become quite wealthy. I suspect that including my pension, I am in the middle of the pack economically, though I finished in toward the top my class academically. The economy turns, and somehow now I have turned into a greedy leech on the public teat. Private counsel have consistently billed far more for the same services provided to public entities, which is why I have a job at all. My job is neither unionized nor civil service protected. I am at-will but with a public sector salary and retirement - similar to a D.A.

Representatives of the people made promises to lure educated and experienced professionals into the public sector, and it will be the people's obligation to keep those promises. The government is not like a business because in fact the government can raise taxes to meet its obligations. The call to strip public employees of salary pensions and benefits is the public rejecting its responsibility to those people who have provided society with public service over the last three decades. That public service kept the roads paved, parks clean, libraries open, streets swept, put out the fires, and patrolled the streets - and did so effectively for the vast majority of people and locations in this country. Those services aren't free, and the public should pay what it promised for what has been provided.

If new deals need to be struck for new workers who will provide such services in the future, then just beware that the public will get what it pays for. If it does not like public service now, wait until less qualified persons are hired motivated by lower salary and minimal benefits. Taxes are not at, or near, historic highs. If taxes need to be raised to pay for the services provided by government, then the taxes should be raised.

Right leaning politicians cannot let any crisis go to waste, and attacking unions diverts attention from the excesses of their politcal supporters that have gutted the economy. Public and private unions should not be making concessions without management making greater concessions - both sides need to streamline for greater corporate profitability and public efficiency. Why should the CEO of any unprofitable company be paid millions?

Certainly, reform of government service is in order, and greater efficiency should be required, but the public needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Public sector jobs should pay well enough to attract talent. Private sector money led to raising of public sector salaries and benefits due to competition with the private sector for white collar talent.

As for blue collar jobs, you don't want cops looking to supplement their income, or for police depts. to be hiring thugs for cops because the pay is so low that educated men no longer apply. Cops have often abused the retirement system more than other groups, but that is partly the payback for the nature of the risk inherent in their job. Few other employees face the risk of death or serious injury as part of the job, except maybe those who work in unregulated factories like those before unions insisted on protecting the safety of the working person.

I would be happy to see a levelling of incomes in the U.S., more like Europe. Nothing about Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina, or similarly situated male CEOs immediately suggests why they are worth the money that crony capitalism has paid them. Even entrepeneurs, who have a better claim to riches than CEO's hired to run existing businesses, are rarely irreplaceable or truly unique. If Larry Ellison had not been there, someone else would have done something similar. Entrepeneurs are the fortunate few who are capable and in the right place at the right time, or who steal someone else's idea and make money on it.

Casino operators get rich on the greed and stupidity of the public. So do unscrupulous financial professionals and sellers of useless anti-aging products. The amount of money wasted in this country rather than put to productive use is ridiculous. The money spent on gambling, faux rejuvenation remedies, tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, pornography, etc. could probably reduce the deficit significantly.

The rich have the financial and therefore political power, so they divert attention from the problem of wealth distribution by focusing on "greedy unions" which effect the middle and lower classes. That manipulation will work for a while until those classes realize that they are a majority that has been pitted against each other while the top 1% continue to live like kings for no apparent reason. The young will join them when they realize that only a very small percentage of them from the wealthiest families have any prospects for financial successl. If / when that happens, the sh@@ will hit the fan.

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 19th of February 2011 02:26:38 PM

BigG · Guru

Are European corporations "losing talent" or unable to hire good CEO's because of low salaries?

This will be remembered as the era when the wealth of the US was plundered and dissipated by a well connected elite for personal gain.

I wonder if they think they are going to seamlessly integrate into the coming communist Chinese hegemony elite?

busdriver11 · Guru

"Also tell me what aspects of public pensions were due to public unions? These pensions existed well before there were public unions, include thousands of members that are not in unions and none of the terms were ever subject to or agreed upon by negotiations with the union."

Here's how it has worked in my state. The unions don't always even have to negotiate. Before our current (Democrat) governor was elected for the first time, she put out a plea for funds to support her election bid. The largest contributers were the public sector unions. When she got into office, she almost immediately put a huge raise for these unions into her budget (for some workers, it was over 25%). Of course, the democratic legislature approved it. No negotiation required, 8 billion dollars of increases from this governor very quickly slid into the budget. Now I don't know if the same thing happened with the pensions, though if pensions are based upon salaries, if someone gets a 25% payraise, that would potentially raise the pension considerably. Of course, now she is trying to retract some of it and is getting sued by the unions.

It is political payback, nothing more. Why negotiate when you can just buy off the politicians?

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Abyss- NJ is one of the States with the worst pension problem. It is not because it was an unworkable plan it is strictly because the State failed to meet its obligation for the past 17 years.
I have contributed approximately $100,000 to the pension the State was to contribute 4% of my salary every year as their part of the pension. During this same period I also invested on my own. The total I invested equals 1/9 what my contributions plus the State contributions equal. That account is now valued at $140,000. My pension account would therefore be worth over $1 million if invested in the same manner. Clearly if the State kept its obligation my account would have enough to pay my pension for my anticipated lifespan.

Also tell me what aspects of public pensions were due to public unions? These pensions existed well before there were public unions, include thousands of members that are not in unions and none of the terms were ever subject to or agreed upon by negotiations with the union. By the way I am not in a public sector union.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

It is much the same argument with public sector unions. Read about the Boston police dept. strike shortly after WWI, and the conditions they were working under before. Management has always attempted to screw the workers in both public and private sector, which justified unionization - which then created its own set of problems.

You're right. That's why we need a few hundred billion dollars worth of unfunded pension liabilities. Because of some stuff that happened after WWI in the Boston Police department.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Bogney · Senior Member

It is much the same argument with public sector unions. Read about the Boston police dept. strike shortly after WWI, and the conditions they were working under before. Management has always attempted to screw the workers in both public and private sector, which justified unionization - which then created its own set of problems.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

The business owners were greedy bastards, and their practices gave rise to unions to protect the workers. Unions got powerful and greedy and started ruining the companies. Both management and workers should reduce their compensation in order to be able lower costs gain trust, and possibly compete. Part of the problem is the completely adversarial relationship and lack of openness. CEOs should not be making gazilons while expecting the workers to take cuts. Both should take cuts, and CEOs the far larger percentage cuts. Companies should work on a more cooperative and open basis rather than complete mistrust and antipathy between labor and management. Both sides should behave as adults for a change.

This is about *public* sector unions. They're a joke. At least with private sector unions you can make that rationale. Not with public sector.

pima · Guru

Additionally, let's remember how they create capital. Many of them trade on the stock exchanges. Buyers of stock look at the P/E ratio. If the ratio is lower than another company, where will the investor invest?

Companies also must answer to stockholders.

I am not saying they should make billions without re-investing, what I am saying is that it is not just the SR mgmt they have to answer.

busdriver11 · Guru

No disagreement with Bogney's post. Though I don't think management nor employees should be asked to take cuts if a company is profitable. If management is getting big bonuses while laying off/cutting workers salaries, there is something very screwed up. They can rationalize the "losing talent" argument as much as they like, but the perception is very poor. Then again, if the company is doing well and management is performing,, they should be rewarded.

Bogney · Senior Member

The business owners were greedy bastards, and their practices gave rise to unions to protect the workers. Unions got powerful and greedy and started ruining the companies. Both management and workers should reduce their compensation in order to be able lower costs gain trust, and possibly compete. Part of the problem is the completely adversarial relationship and lack of openness. CEOs should not be making gazilons while expecting the workers to take cuts. Both should take cuts, and CEOs the far larger percentage cuts. Companies should work on a more cooperative and open basis rather than complete mistrust and antipathy between labor and management. Both sides should behave as adults for a change.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cardinal Fang wrote:

Union members are massively overcompensated

I don't understand this comment. Aren't there two sides to every negotiation? Why is the other side agreeing to this supposed overcompensation? And why do anti-union people think it's all right to welsh on deals previously agreed to?

Are you an idiot? Did the governor agree to those contracts? Obviously he didn't.

He wants to break the deals because they're ****ing ridiculous and made in literally a fantasy land atmosphere.

busdriver11 · Guru

There are some serious problems with unions, though. They operate completely in a vacuum, often oblivious (or don't care) about whether their companies are profitable. And government unions, I would imagine, are the most oblivious of how much their wages and benefits cost the taxpayers, since the government will generally always stay in business-yet never make a profit.

Unions ONLY care about increasing wages and benefits for their members, and increasing their power. They care about nothing else, not the viability of the organization they work for, anything. That is it. A union member is a number, they will protect the most incompetent and unethical person, to a member. Certainly they have improved safety, wages and job stability for their members, but sometimes at a cost (particularly high costs promised to unproductive, already retired members) that they cannot afford. Politicians cater to and then payback their union supporters in a sickening manner.

So certainly, these attributes are beneficial to the union member. But they can be in conflict with a company/or government's best interest. The question is, how to mesh these two in a symbiotic relationship that works for both sides.

I am part of a professional national union that has bankrupted other companies, and some of those employees never got jobs back in their profession. My own local union is considered fairly weak, but I actually think they are doing a pretty good job, because they have the strong realization that if we try to take the company down just to improve our own lot, everybody loses. So therefore they negotiate within reason, and it seems to work well for both sides. That is a rare attribute for a union.

Tom1944 · Senior Member

This more about breaking a key Democratic voting bloc than about the economics. It is the Republican plan to destroy these unions. If they ultimately succeed it will further erode the middle class

Are you better off than your parents?

Probably not if you're in the middle class.

Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data.

Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 or more -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years, leaving average Americans in the dust. Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology and globalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.

But there's more to the story.

A real drag on the middle class

One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions and other labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chief economist for the Labor Department, now a professor at Rutgers University.

Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, union workers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than their non-union counterparts, Rodgers said.

But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years. In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010, they represented less than 12%.

"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explain why low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen their wages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.

Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially for blue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.

International competition is another factor. While globalization has lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn't exactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.

Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to other countries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure on American wages.

"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question of whether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.

Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costs abroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producing economy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skills American employers are looking for.

Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collar opportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, now employers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college, Rodgers said.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

I don't live in WI, but these are hard times and they call for hard decisions. Everyone must ante up to the table.

Times are NOT hard in Wisconsin. Wisconsin had a balanced budget a month and a half ago, until the governor cut taxes for his business cronies. Now he has the nerve to say, "Times are hard, we all have to sacrifice." Apparently we don't ALL have to sacrifice-- his political allies get windfalls, and his political opponents have to pay for them.

His union-busting doesn't apply to police, firefighters and state troopers. By the greatest coincidence, the police, firefighters and state troopers unions supported him during the campaign, while the teachers opposed him. Did this dude run on the platform of rewarding his political cronies? Is that what people thought they were voting for?

pima · Guru

I just watched MSNBC and they spoke to a state Senator. The Senator, a Democrat, asked that his location not be revealed because they are basically in hiding. He stated he is out of the state and will come back when the timing is right.

OMG, are you kidding me? You fled the state.

I understand the GOP has majority, but fleeing the state so they can't make a quorum.

Is this the level politics has come to? Let me take my toys and run?

Yet, of course they don't get why voters are angry with them.

I don't live in WI, but these are hard times and they call for hard decisions. Everyone must ante up to the table. If a political official can't get that across than they need to leave.

We are no longer in the early 20th century with sweat shops and no child labor laws. We complain daily as parents of the ineffective education our children receive in the public school system, but by all means, let's keep guaranteeing tenure. Let's keep giving them those health bennies at a lower cost than the avg citizen. Let's allow them to retire 10-15 yrs earlier than the avg American on a pension.

Now before you throw Bullet and the military pension...I have already stated, defer or take it, if it means we can get out of debt.

Times are hard. The elected officials can be parental, and give reality, or they can run away.

Cardinal Fang · Senior Member

Union members are massively overcompensated

I don't understand this comment. Aren't there two sides to every negotiation? Why is the other side agreeing to this supposed overcompensation? And why do anti-union people think it's all right to welsh on deals previously agreed to?

Abyss · Senior Member

You are supporting a stupid position. Union members are massively overcompensated once benefits have been factored in. Taxpayers fund those benefits.

BigG · Guru

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145033-wisconsin-gov-gop-emboldened-by-protests-

I suspose he can hire Pinkerton thugs to machine gun the teachers in the grand old Republican tradition.

Interesting that he takes the "we have seized power and are going to use it" position.

Wasn't President O. reviled by the Republicans for that very attitude?

By all means let's give bright young people less incentive to go into education rather than "financial services". That's the way to build and maintain a great nation!