You forgot the part in November when the people of Wisconsin elected a Republican governor and legislature that campaigned on lowering taxes and making Wisconsin a friendlier place to do business. Also, public sector unions shouldn't exist in the first place. Somewhat funny that the entity that unions rely on to enforce labor conditions is the very same entity that they feel they need to have collective bargaining rights with.

The Unions do have power. They can vote in elections, just like everyone else.

From Professor Calvin Massey of UC Hastings regarding private versus public sector unions: (Emphasis added)
http://www.uchastings.edu/faculty-administration/faculty/massey/index.html

Teacher's unions are the fucking devil.

Well, at least you admit that this really isn't about balancing the budget, but about destroying unions.

No, it is first and foremost about balancing major budget deficits that Democrats and Republicans state governments have built over the past decades. The destruction of public sector unions (I feel the same about the NLRA in general) is simply one of the rails to that end. There has to be across the board cuts in all other programs too, including the release of non-violent drug offenders.

Or just ending the drug war in general. That is a far bigger problem to the budget than some pesky public unions.

Except, of course, when the Wisconsin Governor went into office, he had a surplus, which he immediately erased by giving tax breaks and giveaways to his rich contributors in the amount of $140 million dollars. Now they are shocked -- shocked! -- that they are broke.

What to do, what to do? Do we fix the tax breaks that were given to the top 1% who doesn't need them? No, of course, that is unthinkable! Those poor millionaires! The only solution is to of course cut services to the poor and middle class. After all, those people never contribute to Republican campaigns.

Bottom line: This is a financial crisis because the Governor was too corrupt and/or incompetent to manage the budget, and now he's decided that the working people have to pay so that his rich friends can continue to buy those extra homes in Bermuda.

I am constantly amazed at how the rich and powerful manage to con people like you into thinking that it's a good idea to have us lose jobs and homes so that they can remain insanely wealthy.

You can't even call that shit a war. Wars end.

The tax cut/deficit thing isn't accurate, either.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/sta ... udget-sur/

Not that the tax cuts would help.

All I can say is that coming from a family of teachers, and having a wife who is one - I would never, ever be a teacher.

It seems to be the easy target job to constantly attack lately, but I don't think people realize how much bullshit comes with the job, and how it gets worse year after year.

Things like "continuing education", where you have to take college classes for the rest of your career to keep your teaching certificate. Many of my wife's summers are spent at college where we have to spend the $1000+ per class out of our pocket, just to keep her job. This is on top of the required "professional development" that is required every year that is provided by the school district. Most of which is all bullshit, doesn't apply to the job, and was all implemented because it sounded good politically.

Teaching is FAR from a cushy job. The targets set, the training required, and just dealing with the kids, parents, and administration is far from a glorious job. By comparison, police work requires ZERO training to keep your certificate, we don't have any targets or quotas, and while we have some bullshit to put up with in terms of the public, it isn't anything like what I see teacher's put up with.

I'm not sure of the situation in Wisconsin, but around here, I know teacher's have been paying more and more of their health care, have had pay freezes, layoffs, and have not been living high on the hog during the recession.

Teaching is becoming a real shitty job, and I'll be amazed if anybody with half a brain chose it as a career these days. That simply is not good for our future.

As for unions... I've seen their use both good and bad throughout the years. You can think that labor laws would protect teachers without them, but I've seen the administration try to abuse teachers as well and have seen the union serve good in that capacity. I've also seen it protect some really bad teachers that should have been fired long ago. However, I think breaking them up, or the ability of the workers to do collective bargaining is a dangerous slope. I believe a public worker has every bit as much right to unionize and bargain collectively as a private worker does.

In the end, though, I think the path we are on in regards to teachers and the way they are treated is a dangerous one.

I should clarify that my wife does very good at her job, is very well liked, and is definitely a teacher that cares about her students and works hard for them.

She is also a teacher that has gone from teaching art to 400 kids 17 years ago, to teaching 600+ kids in 3 different schools within the same district (due to many cuts). She now spends pretty much every day from 7am to 7pm as the prep time for 600+ kids is insane and the district squeezes every possible minute out of her (her during school plan time is down to the bone). This is on top of all the continuing education she has to take.

I would love for anybody here to take her job for a month or two and see what your opinion of teaching and how they are treated is after that.

Luckily, teaching is not a very important job in regards to the future of the country.

Thanks for that.

I guess what that means is, as you said, the tax cuts may not have caused the deficit, but they're just going to make things even worse in the future.

Although I was wrong on the cause of the deficit this year the bottom line is the same: instead of trying to fix the problem by going to the people with money, they've decided it's better to hit those who are not in the millionaire category. Forget about trying to get money out of those who have three homes and earn $1,000,000 a year -- Get those darn teachers and police officers with their obscene $50,000 a year salary!

It's all a matter of whose side you're on, I guess.

Or how about the guy who is now working fewer hours, lost the (meager) 4% matching funds that his employer contributed to his retirement fund, and who also has to pay a higher amount in his health care premium. There are many examples of underemployment like this, not to mention unemployment, such that the state now has less revenue.

In walks the union who won't agree to any cuts to their benefit package and some modest scaling of their salary. Who calls in sick so that parents have to miss time at work to watch younger children or expend money for daycare and on top of that the union protesters (the ones who are not astroturfers) are paid sick time for their absence. They carry signs claiming that Governor Walker is Hitler.

And I am the one being conned because I don't want the rich to be soaked? Because I make less than $50k a year myself as a contract employee, meaning I do not get any retirement benefits at all and have to pay for my entire health care premium (which is crappy) and I can easily be terminated? I want to be a rich person. I want to build wealth and make a name for myself. Rich people are not lucky and they are not thieves. They work hard and work longer hours than the average person.

Right! Look at Paris Hilton!

Isn't most mega-wealth inherited nowadays?

The bottom line is this:

The money has to come from somewhere. So we can take it from people whose homes are in foreclosures, who struggle to make their payments, and who worry about what might happen if they were to lose their health care -- or we can take it from those who could easily lose another 10% of their income and never have to worry once about whether they could feed their kids or pay their mortgage.

Personally, I think it is tremendously insulting to imply that extremely rich people somehow work harder than the rest of us, or are somehow superior to us mere mortals down here struggling to get by. There certainly are some who got where they are because of hard work, but there are many who worked very hard and never made it, and some who just inherited everything from Daddy.

Did Bill Gates get any funding initially from his parents back in the 70s? I know they were very well-off, albeit not billionaires.

I never said that the majority don't work hard. But I don't believe that they necessarily work harder than anyone else. The guy who has two jobs to feed his family sure looks like he's working hard to me.

The people who are in the top 1% -- the group I was referring to -- most of these people are investors and bankers and Wall Street types. They work many hours, admittedly, but hey, it's really not that "hard" of a job physically at least. I'd much rather do that than dig a ditch or drive a truck, even if the salaries were exactly the same.

The point, however, is that SOMEONE has to pay taxes for society to work. To me, it makes sense to tax those who have been lucky enough -- either through their skills, hard work, or because they inherited it -- to be able to spare the money without forcing them into hardship. If we just went back to tax rates we had under Eisenhower (that crazy socialist!) we'd be out of debt. Instead, the tax rate has fallen hugely for the rich to the point where, especially with all the tax breaks they can get, they are paying less than their secretaries. That's just stupid economic policies, and it's why we're in this mess to begin with.

I don't know about Wall Street, but one of the most cushioned jobs I know belongs to one of my father's co-workers. The guy's job is to literally go and have dinner with people. He's good at making people feel good about themselves. Seriously that's his job. He works at of his house, he gets a shit ton of vacation time, and has been tried in court twice to get fired for, honestly I don't know why. But the guy makes millions. I grew up with the rich, I am a rich white boy, and trust me, this whole illusion of rich people being hard workers is a goddamn sick joke.

Usually the hard workers are those who go into being entrepreneurs, who turn into workaholics who neglect their loved ones and live a life based around self-absorbed driven desires. These people are not typically as shameless as the aforementioned, and deserve their rights to counter taxes raised against their hard work, but these people are incredibly cheap people who hoard money instead of pumping it back into the economy. I know, I am describing my ex-girlfriend's father. He was a very nice man, a very good person, but he was cheap as fuck. So this whole idea that giving the rich more money, from my point of view, is also bullshit. I know what they do with it.

If they wanted to hire more people they'd just as well hire some illegal immigrants. I dated a girl from Eudora who's dad owned a landscaping company. They are all anti-labor juggernauts who believe in lowering wages for their workers and they do hire illegal immigrants.

Sorry if my world isn't a pretty Republican's wet dream, but their philosophy as it applies to the masses is bullshit. I don't know what their philosophy is per say, but I can assure you it is not in the interest of others. Now I am sure there are some numbers to support an argument against me, and I'm sure you might be right. But I have a whole life time of experiences, as short as my life might be, that have indicated the corrupt nature of money, of material greed, of the sacrifice of happiness for a better salary, of the neglectful nature that comes with being raised by a workaholic, of the frivolous life style of some rich who do have pampered jobs, of the lack of concerned a proprietorship shows to its employees, honestly I could go on.

The point behind my ramble is uncertain. I think it is possibly because I try not to get into political discussions on message boards because of the close-minded nature of them. I myself grew up a staunch Republican, listened to Rush Limbaugh everyday, championed his words and the words of people like him, and attacked the lazy nature of socialism. But I was always opened for debates, and always pay attention to my environment and saw what money, material possessions, and meaningless jobs did to people. I've seen the toll this drive has taken on people first hand, on numerous occasions. I gave up my interests on that and have since tried to redefined myself politically based on the rational of education. I have not seen many others do the same.

As such, I merely try to set back and listen to the back and forth duels between Groucho and Krem (aided by his cheerleaders in Caius and Grill). And the only words of wisdom coming from Krem and mdana (I think that was her name). I typically agree with Groucho more, but I feel Krem supports his claims better. Either way, for whatever reason, I've decided to speak now, after holding my tongue for such a long time I ended up vomited my political allegiances all into one long tirade. All in response to Magnus's claim that the rich are rich because of their hard work, or rather that the rich are hard workers. And to say that just isn't the case, honestly, most of the time. Usually it is the upper-middle class that are rich because they are hard workers. I say that from growing up rich from a honest hard-working business man with staunch business morals.

You have those people, like I said, they are typically entrepreneurs of sorts. But for the white collar corporate upper management jobs: every single one of them I know works 40 hours a week like most people, and their jobs end once they enter the threshold of their home. Many of these people in the latter category make much more money than do the entrepreneurs with more benefits, less work, and less responsibility.

That isn't to say the rich aren't hard workers, I think that is a poor way to phrase my point, but to say more wealth means is due to harder work is inaccurate.

Oh same here. This concept that the rich are lazy premadonnas is a naive propaganda perpetuated by the media's portrayal of Hollywood celebrities.

Tony, I don't think anybody's arguing that your wife is not doing her job well, but the problem that people have with teachers is how incredibly stubborn their unions are. Every day we have to hear stories about teachers committing unethical behavior and outright crimes yet remaining on the jobs due to the unions' power. In the meantime the good teachers, such as your wife, are not able to be recognized via merit promotions due to incredibly backwards seniority rules.

Until the teachers' unions reform to allow for common sense in public education you will see attacks on teachers unions coming from taxpayers. And, yes, sometimes it will spill over to individuals, as unfortunate as that is.

Or (crazy idea, I know) we could simply spend less on the public sector.


Your point would be valid if the rich didn't already pay the vast majority of the taxes in this country.