The Union battle is affecting us gays!

what is ironic, it is not unions that are costing the states huge amount of money, it is private contracters that truly are costing the states buttloads of money. union workers tend to make 11-12% less than their fellow workers of comparable educational background and position.

And people wonder why I am so against 'Facisem'. If you don't fit the right wing's narrow-minded views of the world (white, rich, straight, and penised), then your not american enough, and therefore are not deserving of equal rights and due process under the law.

in wisconsion, the budget bill is trying to revoke insurance companies being able to cover birth control.

It is nothing more than culture war hidden behind budget lies. First they created the budget woes... now they are useing them to take away the rights of groups they don't like.

What is next, concentration camps?

 

What's also lovely is this bill will effect both hetero and homo couples...tsk tsk.

 

Are your serious??
Public pension programs are a huge drain on state finances. The difference between the public unions and the private unions is the fact that the taxpayers have to pick up the majority of the tab for public unions.
The start of California's economic problems was the fact the Jerry Brown gave public employees collective bargaining privilege (and it is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT) to begin with in when he served his first term as governor. To his credit he has said the sate has to cut back.
As far as the Democratic Senators that have refused to show up for work because they are cowards...how typical. When they show back up in their home districts in they should be run back out of town.

 

If the teachers plan to walk out ( I don't know if this particular state has this law, but if they do it should be used) the Governor needs to do the exact same thing Reagan did with the air traffic controllers in the 1980's...give them a dead line to show up for work...if they fail to meet that dead line...fire their asses. Period.

Collective Bargaining is still in effect as far as salaries go. What they are wanting to do is to take that away from the pension and benefit side. By simple asking that the public unions add a contribution to THEIR OWN pension programs...instead of having the taxpayers pick up the majority (or in some cases 100% of it)

There is also a provision that the Union higher-ups are rallying against, and that is eliminating the mandate that union dues (by law) come out of an individuals state paycheck. I If a public employee wants to be part of a union, than fine (I'm from a right to work state so you know where I stand) but if you are a public employe and not want to be affiliated with a union, why should your own paycheck be docked for it? Under current law it is. The reason for this? Power and control for the union bosses. Everyone blasts corporations for giving money to politics...well the Unions are not saints. In 2010 Unions gave over $600 million to Democratic political campaigns.

In regards to bargaining "right" effecting finances...as the Prime Minister says in PM Questions, "I refer the Gentlemen to the response I gave some time ago"

As far as applauding the Senators that tucked tail and played hide-and-go seek...i simply have a different view. Legislators are elected to do just that...legislate. They may not like the issues at hand, but they are elected to do a job.
Elections have consequences, and quoting the President at the start of his legislative agenda "We won...and the Republicans can get at the back of the bus"

Well...the republicans at least showed up to the bus stop going to Washington. I guess we will have to send charlie Chan or Horatio Caine out to find the Democratic lawmakers that would rather run and hide other than actual make a tough decision.

Sorry, I don't care if they were republicans or democrats...any elected official that runs and hides rather than face his or her own responsibility is an embarrassment and they should be ashamed of them selves.

 

Well, how much is enough in your eyes? I suppose you believe we should revert back to the good old days when the top marginal tax rate was 90%...would that be enough for you, or do you want more? Is 95% enough?

yes, let's once again wage war against the rich...normally that battle cry doesn't come up until after labor Day...but if you want to start it early that's fine I guess. Yes, let's make all the rich people poor....that's the key to everything I guess. So...simply by increasing the tax on "the rich"..according to the current Administration is anyone that makes $250,000 a year will magically solve the $14 trillion situation we find the nation in. Okay...interesting.
Increasing taxes on the rich will make the billions of unfunded liability vanish? Okay...fascinating.

I'm sorry, I mean no offense to your mother (I'm sure she is dedicated to her job and does a wonderful job)..but I think there is a vast difference between a soldier that puts his or her life on the line in defense of this country and someone that re-zones my house...there is just simply no comparison. That may seem harsh, but that's reality and I'm sorry if you find that offensive..or "revolting" as you called it.

Look, people in the private sector go through the same thing. It's not easy...but sometimes people get paid shit wages...that's life.
I'm not sure about the Ohio educational budget, but I do know that the budget (well, at least the one from FY2008 because Congress was too inept to even pass a budget last year) for the FDE is one of the most bloated and convoluted messes known to Mankind and you are damn right it needs to be cut.
The eligibility requirements for Social Security and Medicare need to be raised for younger generations.

Look, I bitch about my salary too. That's why I want to become a Union Boss...that way I can make a fortune.

 

Do you think that income taxes are the only taxes that those with means pay?
An entry level McDonald's worker more than likely pays no income taxes at all.

Defense spending, sure. Social Security Medicare/Medicaid absolutely.

If simply raising taxes helps, why is it that so many times when states raise taxes they actually lose more revenue than they projected the increased tax would bring in to begin with?

Public employees don't have a recourse fror their grievances? Good lord if you are a classified government employee (which is the majority in the Federal System) it is almost impossible to get fired...and the grievance process can drag out for god knows how long.

You are right, you can't really compare the two sectors. Because if private business ran like government, if private business gave into every whim, we would have no private businesses left, because they all would be bankrupt. Many times, in the private sector, unions serve one purpose...to cause financial ruin on a company..note GM, Eastern Airlines, Consolidated Freight, etc. Why do you think the auto-manufacturing facilities located in right to work states are doing much better than those in unionized states? Why did Boeing pick to build a huge manufacturing plant in South Carolina that will result in thousands of jobs? It was because of being in a right to work state.

My dad owned his own company, and he always said he would shut the place down before he would ever allow the first unionized worker on the property.

Do unions serve a greater purpose? I suppose in a way they do. But many times you see the high-archy of Union leadership more concerned with their individual power over those in the rank and file...why else would card-check be such an issue? Why would they be against letting someone pay their dues on a voluntary basis instead of having an automatic deduction by law? If someone wants to be a member of a union, fine that is their choice...if someone doesn't i don't think they should be forced to pay for it.

The Federal system has some unions, but it is against the law for them to strike or walk out...which i think is good. The last time that was enforced was in the 1980's i think when the air traffic controllers went on strike and were all terminated. Which was the right thing to do imo.

The problem with unionization now-a-days (or rather in the not-toodistant past..seeing how I think some are finally coming around that something's gotta give) is that we had unions run amok. California became a fiscal disaster due in part to the run-a-way pandering the legislature did for years to the public employee unions...because they were a power political force out there and the politicians (and this is not restricted to just one party, all are guilty) were more concerned about their own political position than the long term fiscal health of their state.
Hopefully that is changing. But it is hard to negotiate when you have nothing to give...and that is the situation many states are in today...they simply don't have the money.
What's the solution..raise taxes as you suggested?
While I believe there is no good time to raise taxes there are certainly WORSE times to raise taxes...and now is one of those worst times. The economy, while starting to show signs of life thank goodness, it is still a fragile creature right now...the prospect of dramatically increased gas prices are already a threat to our recovery, and I think it would be a huge mistake to add increased taxes on top of that.