Investing in Precious Metals 101 ad

Wisconson – sign of more to come?

Login or register to post comments Last Post 52248 reads   312 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 261 through 270 (of 312 total)
  • Sat, Mar 19, 2011 - 05:50pm

    #261

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder

    Public vs. Private

[quote=Rihter]

As far as Private taxpayers being the employer of private workers, that is weak argument at best. They pay taxes as well, so does that make them their own employers?! The public sector delivers a fair value for dollars spent. If you feel they don’t, then help vote, design, or structure systems into existence that deliver more value for dollars spent, rather than stripping away dollars for services that the whole of the community is built on.

[/quote]

I strongly disagree.  Yes, middle class union members pay taxes but it is a case of concentrated benefits vs. dispersed costs.  A small portion of each union members taxes goes to pay for themselves, but they are far less sensitive to those taxes than to their own benefits.  How would a public union member feel about taxes being raised 2% on everyone so that union members can get 15% raises?  Do you think that they would think that they would be outraged by this tax increase?

To think otherwise would be like saying we should not criticise a Wall St CEO because he pays his taxes, ignoring the disproportionate benefits his class of financiers get from government largess.  I realize that this is a silly comparison because an individual union members don’t get nearly as sweet of a deal as what Wall St. gets.

What really bothers me about public unions is what is, what are the controls?  If private sector unions take too much, they can threaten their own livelihood, just as the UAW did to the Big Three (granted the unions were not the only problem).  How are for public unions controlled?  Public unions can elect politicians that grant them rights and benefits from the public till.  Now that anti-union politicians are elected, somehow they are not allowed to restrict or remove any of those benefits?   It seems strange that benefits can be granted by one set of political supporters but it is nearly criminal for their opponents to try and take any of them away?

I don’t live in Wisconsin and I don’t know if these public unions are overpaid but if they are, how exactly can they be controlled except by politicians doing exactly what they are doing right now?  In this case the Democrats have acted like spoiled children on a playground.  When they started to lose they tried to take the ball and go home.

  • Sat, Mar 19, 2011 - 06:21pm

    #262
    Rihter

    Rihter

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 27 2010

    Posts: 47

    count placeholder

    re:Goes211

Goes,

Your whole last post basically states how your “bothered” by publics unions, how you believe “Democrats are acting like spoiled children”, and at the same time ignore the rest of my post.

Did you quote me just to make your point about how much you dislike public unions and democrats?

  • Sat, Mar 19, 2011 - 09:04pm

    #263

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder

    Why did I quote you?

[quote=Rihter]

Goes,

Your whole last post basically states how your “bothered” by publics unions, how you believe “Democrats are acting like spoiled children”, and at the same time ignore the rest of my post.

Did you quote me just to make your point about how much you dislike public unions and democrats?

[/quote]

Rihter,

I quoted and bolded the part of your post that I disagreed with.  I then went about explaining why I disagree.  You are free to disagree with my arguments but I doubt that I am the only one that thinks this way.

As for the rest of your post…

[quote=Rihter]

If there’s fluff, unnecessary redundancy, or waste in the various budgets across the country than cut it out. I would argue that a teachers compensation package does not fit in any of those categories. If the value isn’t there than rework the education system, not the ability of the educators to survive economically.

[/quote]

Good luck trying to reform our education system.  The teachers unions will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo.  I want teachers to survive economically, after all both my parents were teachers, I just think that they need to provide a service at market prices.  If there are a lot of people that want to teach and the number of jobs is limited, the value of their labor will be low.  If there are few that are good at teaching, and society starts valuing education and creates a lot of education jobs, teachers will do quite well. 

There is no doubt that no one should miss out on some sort of education solely based upon cost, but I don’t support monopolies, be they public or private.  Monopolies are not sensitive to cost in the way that other industry is and therefore they need to operate under different rules or lose their monopoly status.

If there was a proper market for education, where public schools actually had to compete against private schools, I would have no problems with teachers unions.

[quote=Rihter]

On another note. The whole debate is most likely to prove pointless in the long run. I don’t see any of the existing public or private institutions being able to sustain their current economic structures in light of the 3 E’s bearing down on them. The reason I argue for the workers, regardless of their sector, is the principle behind it. I firmly feel that the larger the middle class in a society, the better. Inequality will tear apart any social structure. Whether it’s the extreme Elite, or the extreme Poor, severe stratification of the economic classes will tear apart our collective ability to traverse the crisis that we are faced with.

[/quote]

I largely agree with this paragraph with one exception.  While I think inequality is probably a symptom of the problem, I don’t think it is inequality itself that will tear apart a social structure.  I think it is injustice that will destroy a social structure.

I personally don’t have a problem with others having more or less than I have as long as that difference was gained in a just maner.  It does not bother me that Kobe Bryant makes $25 million a year.  He can drive around in a Bugatti Veyron and live in a mansion in Beverly Hills for all I care.  If this bothers you, it is probably jealousy.  He is doing something that few others can do ( and I certainly NEVER could ) and he is probably generating far more value than $25 million for the league.  What he chooses to do with that wealth is not my concern. 

Now if a banker is making that same money using leverage and free money from the banking cartel, privatizing gains and socializing loses, I have a serious problem with this.  The difference is not the inequality, it is the injustice.

[quote=Rihter]

The elite don’t really need an advocate. They can hire one, and do in the form of lobbyists. The poor on the other hand, or as we call them today “the middle class”, do need an advocate no matter what form it comes in. Unions, community organizers, philanthropists, Non-Profits, or any other entity that supports the common person is always going to appeal to me. It also cuts the other way. Anyone who opposes the common person, or the organizations that support them, is going to provoke me.

[/quote]

For me it is not so black and white.  I support those on the lower end against injustice, not inequality.  If those on the lower end choose to use injustice to gain equality, I can not support them.

  • Sun, Mar 20, 2011 - 12:19am

    #264
    Useyerloaf

    Useyerloaf

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 08 2011

    Posts: 22

    count placeholder

    unions

[quote=goes211]

[quote=Useyerloaf]

I don’t get why you can’t seem to connect the dots, the reason these non union jobs suck now more than ever is related to the drop in union membership. It’s been the plan for years, make the unions the scapegoat for every issue, because unions were the only unified force against exploitation of workers. How people cannot make this connection is beyond me. When the last union is crushed a new scapegoat such as minimum wage will be created. After that you’ll all then be set against one another for whatever scraps you are offered.

[/quote]

Correlation does not equal causality.  There are many factors that have lead to the decline in unions and the decline of the American worker.  Some of them might be shared but many are not.  Some of the largest unions priced themselves out of existence like the UAW.  Most others have been hurt by globalization, but that has also affected many non-union workers.  Just like most of the rest of our problems, there are many causes, and few obvious solutions.

Unions are certainly not “scapegoats for every issue” nor will they be our salvation.  They are just another issue that will serve to divide the masses, much like religion, abortion, race, …

[/quote]

“Correlation does not equal causality”  seems to be a blanket defense to very obvious truths . The UAW did not price themselves out of job, the cars they were building were in the same range as the imports. The product they were building, which they had no hand in designing or developing, was deemed inferior to imports so people stopped buying them. The Auto industry went down because of an inferior product, not unions.  Mark my words, now the unions are going under, minimum wage and workplace protection will be next.

  • Sun, Mar 20, 2011 - 01:15pm

    #265
    Rihter

    Rihter

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 27 2010

    Posts: 47

    count placeholder

    re:Goes211

Thank You. That is a good response.

First point. The amount of people agreeing, or disagreeing, with either of us doesn’t add any weight to the argument. Just more opinions.

Point two. Teachers in a free market system absent of public monopoly. Have at it. “Little House on the Prairie” system. Freelance educators trying to find a market for their services. Countries all over the world educate their people with a comparable system. I don’t for one second believe it will drive down the cost. However, I do believe it would improve the education for those that can afford to pay for it . I would ask if you have any examples of a successful private k-12 education system, that serves the general public, in a industrialized western culture?

Point three. You implying I’m jealous of Kobe is insulting. Really I wasn’t even factoring Kobe into the “Elite”. I also don’t think wealth is the be all, end all of equality. Tracing the root of his compensation is basic. He has a brand that appeals to a market. Your example of the banks is more in line with what I meant by “inequality”. You may choose to frame it differently by calling it “justice”, but the end result is the same.

I’m all for free market solutions, but I view it as an unrealistic goal similar to “pure communism”. Neither is ever going to exist the way it is drawn up in the text books. After Japan’s nightmare, do you really want to test an unregulated nuclear market?! (rhetorical to make a point)

When I refer to equality, I’m not talking about  equal access to stuff or property. I’m talking about equal access to inalienable rights. When money is the tool that grants access to your “rights” (Citizens United for example) justice, equality, liberty, etc… are all tossed out the window. I thought, as a country, we were passed the days when only property owners were allowed to vote. That is the equality I’m referring to. Let me preempt the everyone can vote argument by stating the following. If, and I say IF, you believe an individual and a corporation have an equal voice in a post-Citizens United system, than you are naive. There are several other low hanging examples, but I would ask that you apply the previous example to to any of your choosing using this as a guiding principle. What do you consider a basic right, and does money grant an unfair advantage to accessing that right? If you are OK with that unfair advantage, then you and I are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

 

 

  • Sun, Mar 20, 2011 - 01:33pm

    #266
    docmims

    docmims

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jun 17 2009

    Posts: 89

    count placeholder

    Suppose we pay teachers, say

Suppose we pay teachers, say 1000000 dollars a year (thats a million dollars to those of you like me were educated in public schools).  Would we have better teachers assuming seniority rules like most unions?

 

Could we solve the deficit by taxing those evil rich teachers 90 percent of their income?  Keep in mind they get their income from taxes in the first place.  (Actually we could solve the problem by raising their salary to 1 million dollars and taxing them 96 percent giving them the illusion of being rich while keeping 40k a year!)

Do not take my comments as a solution to the problem, but I am a rich teamster.

  • Sun, Mar 20, 2011 - 03:08pm

    #267

    goes211

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 18 2008

    Posts: 287

    count placeholder

    Three points revisited

[quote=Rihter]

Thank You. That is a good response.

First point. The amount of people agreeing, or disagreeing, with either of us doesn’t add any weight to the argument. Just more opinions.

Point two. Teachers in a free market system absent of public monopoly. Have at it. “Little House on the Prairie” system. Freelance educators trying to find a market for their services. Countries all over the world educate their people with a comparable system. I don’t for one second believe it will drive down the cost. However, I do believe it would improve the education for those that can afford to pay for it . I would ask if you have any examples of a successful private k-12 education system, that serves the general public, in a industrialized western culture?

Point three. You implying I’m jealous of Kobe is insulting. Really I wasn’t even factoring Kobe into the “Elite”. I also don’t think wealth is the be all, end all of equality. Tracing the root of his compensation is basic. He has a brand that appeals to a market. Your example of the banks is more in line with what I meant by “inequality”. You may choose to frame it differently by calling it “justice”, but the end result is the same.

I’m all for free market solutions, but I view it as an unrealistic goal similar to “pure communism”. Neither is ever going to exist the way it is drawn up in the text books. After Japan’s nightmare, do you really want to test an unregulated nuclear market?! (rhetorical to make a point)

When I refer to equality, I’m not talking about  equal access to stuff or property. I’m talking about equal access to inalienable rights. When money is the tool that grants access to your “rights” (Citizens United for example) justice, equality, liberty, etc… are all tossed out the window. I thought, as a country, we were passed the days when only property owners were allowed to vote. That is the equality I’m referring to. Let me preempt the everyone can vote argument by stating the following. If, and I say IF, you believe an individual and a corporation have an equal voice in a post-Citizens United system, than you are naive. There are several other low hanging examples, but I would ask that you apply the previous example to to any of your choosing using this as a guiding principle. What do you consider a basic right, and does money grant an unfair advantage to accessing that right? If you are OK with that unfair advantage, then you and I are never going to see eye to eye on anything.

[/quote]

First Point. I did not say I was correct simply because others believe as I do.  Opinions are like ___holes, everybody’s got one.  I thought I laid out a reasonable argument and you are free to disagree.

Point Two.  Check out Stossel’s “Stupid in America”.  I can’t figure out how to embed the starting time into the link.   The part to consider begins at 17:15.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw&start=1035

Point Three.  I did not say that you were jealous of Kobe.  Please check again at what I said.  What I said was  “IF this bothers you, it is probably jealousy”.  What I was pointing out is that we have a very unequal outcome ( Kobe $25+ million a year, me quite a bit less ) but I am not bothered by this.  Once again, It is not the inequality, it is the injustice.  Some people on the far left might disagree and believe that any inequality of outcome is unacceptable.  Some on the far right may believe that the banker exists within a system that can be legally manipulated (privatizing gains and socializing loses) and therefore his actions are acceptable.  It is my opinion that the majority of people are somewhere inbetween and that it is not the inequality that is the problem but how fair or just was the system that allowed the inequallity to occur.

The bolded section of your response is most interesting.  It is possible that we have less disagreement than it first seemed.  I would have to know more about what you consider an “unfair advantage”.

  • Sun, Mar 20, 2011 - 08:16pm

    #268
    Rihter

    Rihter

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 27 2010

    Posts: 47

    count placeholder

    Unfair advantage

Unfair advantage. I’ll stick to the original example.

– Publicly traded corporations that funnel money to politicians to push there agendas > you or I sending money to our guys on the stump

 

  • Mon, Mar 21, 2011 - 04:24am

    #269

    dshields

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 25 2009

    Posts: 385

    count placeholder

    life

I watched the school video.  Once you start it is hard to stop.  Yep – one section of the video was about Kansas City when I used to live there.  It was amazing what happened.  A Federal judge decided that the inner city black schools had very poor standardized test results compared to the suburb schools because they were not funded as will..  They started confiscating part of the property taxes from the suburbs and giving it to the inner city schools.  They spent 2 billion dollars in just a few years and the test scores are even worse than they were before the spending started.  It is shocking.  In the meantime, a bunch of people took it to the supreme court and it turned out to be unconstitutional to take people’s property taxes and redistribute them willy nilly.  There are many examples of school failures with huge funding.  It is not about money.  It is about people.  Kansas City is a terrible place.  It is a huge city jammed full of trash.  It is the meth capital of the world.  There is so much crime the police are simply over whelmed.  Stealing is a way of life.  Back to schools –

If you do not know who you Dad is, and your Mom doesn’t work and just gets wasted every day, and nobody makes you do anything then you go bad.  it is not money, it is not the school, I am not even sure it is the teachers (although they hold some responsibility for sure), it is the people.  The parents and the system.  We were not allowed to misbehave in school.  If you were disruptive you were removed.  Your parents were called to come pick you up.  If you were disruptive a few times you were permanently removed.  The entire standard has been lowered.  Liberalism is directly at fault here.  Permissive views have allowed discipline to go off the rails and now we are in trouble.

Kids in other countries are not smarter than our kids.  Our kids are just not required to perform.  A massive (and growing) welfare state has applied liberal ethics to our kids and now practically every civilized country in earth has better schools than we do.

We need a crack down on useless teachers, schools, and school discipline in general.  The unions just keep demanding more and more money with less and less results.  The unions are keeping us from finding and removing the poor teachers.  Yet another reason we need to remove unions from the government.

 

  • Mon, Mar 21, 2011 - 05:36am

    #270

    Poet

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 20 2009

    Posts: 976

    count placeholder

    Re-Defining The Labels To Demonize With Libel

[quote=dshields]

Liberalism is directly at fault here.  Permissive views have allowed discipline to go off the rails and now we are in trouble.

A massive (and growing) welfare state has applied liberal ethics to our kids and now practically every civilized country in earth has better schools than we do.

[/quote]

See what I mean? You don’t like it when “normal” becomes “right wing”. I don’t like it when stuff even I don’t support becomes “liberal”.

Poet

Viewing 10 posts - 261 through 270 (of 312 total)

Login or Register to post comments