Wisconsin Takes A Stand For Fiscal Sanity

[molly bloom]

Excellent example. Only gay politicians can look after gay interests, otherwise they shouldn't bother (not their constituency).

I really have no idea what you're talking about now- I fail to see how my post can in any way be interpreted to somehow suggest that I support single issue politicians. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I'm unaware of any of its lesbian or gay politicians having been elected solely or mainly because of a promise to look after only or mainly their gay or lesbian constituents.

I think you might have a problem with that.

Given that I don't define my life solely by my sexuality, yes, I would. I seem to spend less time thinking about my sexuality and sex life than do members of the Westboro Baptist Church and assorted homophobic European politicians. Then again, I dont claim to have a direct line to God, or a definitive reading of any collection of holy scriptures, so perhaps that accounts for it.

[molly bloom]

The point being the elected politician only responds to his own group.

Democrats are bought and paid for.

Evidence, or it's just an opinion. Unlike this exchange:

Koch: [Laughs] Well, I tell you what, Scott: once you crush these bastards I’ll fly you out to Cali and really show you a good time.

Walker: All right, that would be outstanding.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02...ts_fooled.html

I'm familiar with being sold out for thirty pieces of silver, but for the promise of a plane trip to California and a 'good time' ? Cheap is as cheap does.

Of course a certain ex-President of the U.S. also had a career as a shill for General Electric, but then he was presenting General Electric Theater too:

Long before he changed the world (!), or led a nation, or governed a state, Ronald Reagan inspired our company with his optimism, entrepreneurial spirit and belief in innovation.
From 1954 to 1962, Ronald Reagan served as host of a popular Sunday evening television program called General Electric Theater. During that time he also spent ten weeks each year traveling the country as GE's roving ambassador.

http://www.ge.com/reagan/video.html

Well, how else are you going to make money once your film career is in the toilet and you've sold out your fellow workers and friends ?

[Wezil]

If you still don't understand the difference between an elected union rep and an elected politician (and who they are respectively supposed to serve) this conversation is dead before it begins Molly.

And no, public sector unions are a distinctive beast in this argument and shouldn't be lumped in with unions in general. Did you read the thread (I realise it is rather lengthy)? You are bringing back an argument already made weeks ago.

[King XII]

Groups of people lobby for self interest. That you have a problem with it is puzzling as you'd likely have no problem with campaign donations as a form for free speech.

[molly bloom]

If you still don't understand the difference between an elected union rep and an elected politician (and who they are respectively supposed to serve) this conversation is dead before it begins Molly.

I'd say it was perfectly clear I understand the difference, as my posts show. Despite my pointing out your use of false dichotomies (taxpayers, Democrat voters, union members) you repeated them. Someone is having problems with comprehension and English language, but it isn't me...

And no, public sector unions are a distinctive beast in this argument and shouldn't be lumped in with unions in general.

So public sector unions are different because they're public sector unions. Riigghhhtttt....

[Wezil]

I think you are being intellectually dishonest Molly. The last line of your above post confirms it.

Pass.

[Kuciwalker]

As I pointed out on page 1 or 2:
The purpose of a union is to prevent exploitation of workers by employers. In the case of public sector workers, we are the employer. Therefore, if our policy goal is to not exploit them, all we have to do is not exploit them. A union is completely unnecessary. The only effect of a public sector union is to make it harder for the voters (through their representatives) to reduce public sector pay, etc.: the only possible purpose is therefore to subvert the will of the voters.

Sometimes, subverting the will of the voters is a good thing (e.g. the Constitutional protection of free speech). But you have to be honest about it. molly bloom, the only rational basis for supporting public sector unions in Wisconsin is to prevent the majority of voters there from freely choosing how to allocate their tax dollars.

[Wezil]

Get him to accept there is a difference between public and private first Kuci.

[C0ckney]

if you measured the will of the voters on this particular issue, what would the outcome be? i read that most people are backing the teachers on this one, so it seems that the unions are not subverting the will of the voters, quite the opposite in fact.

[Hauldren Collider]

Get him to accept there is a difference between public and private first Kuci.

Personally, I went straight to the KrazyHorse-esque step of pointing out that he's another leftist tool.

[Hauldren Collider]

if you measured the will of the voters on this particular issue, what would the outcome be? i read that most people are backing the teachers on this one, so it seems that the unions are not subverting the will of the voters, quite the opposite in fact.

You read wrong, or at least I think you're missing some details. On an abstract level, voters seem opposed to "eliminating unions" (most voters don't really understand unions) but when you ask them if they think teachers should be able to unilaterally set their own pay and benefits a majority have said no, and if you ask them whether they think the current pay and benefits are too high a majority has said yes.

[Krill]

Question: Are there jobs that the majority employer is the public sector? And how, without collective bargaining, are workers in a sector where the majority employer is the public, are those workers supposed to be able to negotiate their benefits/pay upwards?

[Kuciwalker]

The "public sector" is actually thousands of competing local and state governments. The only monopsony employer is the federal government, with respect to certain types of jobs, and even then most of them are still competing with the private sector (and with local/state governments). In fact, the only sector I can think of where the majority employer is a single public entity would be the military.

[C0ckney]

You read wrong, or at least I think you're missing some details. On an abstract level, voters seem opposed to "eliminating unions" (most voters don't really understand unions) but when you ask them if they think teachers should be able to unilaterally set their own pay and benefits a majority have said no, and if you ask them whether they think the current pay and benefits are too high a majority has said yes.

was this the subject of a fox news poll?

[DaShi]

If anything the current pay and benefits of teachers is too low. Far too low for the quality of education people claim to want.