Irregardless of anything you have to say here.
The fact of the matter is, no matter what Republicans, democrats of Joan Rivers does, you simply cannot compete.
Again, unless you're suggesting an American is willing to work for 9 cents an hour for 18 hours a day.
Forget it.
The domestic market is shot. The global market is growing, and they want **** cheap and now.
The truly effecting factor at this point is transportation costs. As oil rises, production costs will be attempted to be lowered to compensate.
No way America can compete with that, regulation or no regulation.
LOL, I love it. Just dismiss what I have to say because it doesn't agree with your view....Ah well, expected.
Oh, and mister smart guy "Irregardless" is not a word.
Now, You speak of oil rising, well who's fault is that? It is the very thing I am talking about on a national scale.
j-mac
Drill off the coast of America ain't going to fix your energy problems tommorow champ, try again.
America will never, ever no matter how much it drills, match the out put of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq or even Veneuzala.
Again, you fail to address the crux issue. Americans have an expectation for what they will work for.
Americans will not work for 9 cents an hour for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
Sorry.
Not gonna happen.
People are desperate for work in your country, do you seem them flooding down to California to pick Strawberries for 20 hours a day? I don't.
Well, off the top of my head they could have asked the unions if they were willing to make concessions on pay and benefits to lower the amount of money the state pays out to employees, maybe they just might accept a deal like that and everything could be hunky-dory. Oh, wait. They did accept a deal like that and Scott Walker flushed it down the toilet like the stupid **** that he is and decided that he needed to get into a pissing match that in no way helps to alleviate the states budget problem. Be mad at that asshole, not the unions which accepted the pay decreases and benefit decreases.
I have a question,
Since the state's budget needs help, did any of the legislators or Governor offer to take a loss in benefits or pay?
I believe I read somewhere that Walker froze his own pay, and that the legislature was slotted to vote on doing the same....
j-mac
Funny, I didn't see that.
It seems like with all the PR. floating around this issue of budget cuts the Governor would be printing that and talking about that every chance he had.
Well, PR people usually put out there the most salient points. However, from what I can gather, Walkers pay and benefits are not out of round in the nation. And it is not about his (1 person's) pay after all, what it is about are the agreements for Cadillac pensions, and Health Care that are bankrupting the state.
j-mac
There are Constitutional provisions in place which will limit the right wing zeal to repeal the 20th century progressive reforms no matter what the election results may has said last November. And that is a very good thing.
now those people that spent their career in government service, earning a smaller slary than they may have obtained working in the public sector, but with inferior pension benefits ... are they going to have forfeited the opportunity to earn a higher salary over their career for superior pension benefits only to now lose that superior pension after the fact?In case you haven't noticed, the people with the real authority--that's us--have decided to repeal the so-called, "progressive reforms".
specifically, what about those 'progressive reforms' do you find moves us back to the 1400's ?More people, everyday, are realizing that those progressive reforms are pushing farther into the 15th Century rather than the 21st Century.
Uhh, permits have been issued.
now those people that spent their career in government service, earning a smaller slary than they may have obtained working in the public sector, but with inferior pension benefits ... are they going to have forfeited the opportunity to earn a higher salary over their career for superior pension benefits only to now lose that superior pension after the fact?
since you insist 'the people' have made this decision, i was hoping 'the people' could now answer that question
specifically, what about those 'progressive reforms' do you find moves us back to the 1400's ?
Your comments are absurd and ridiculous. The law as passed this week by the Republicans and signed by a Republican governor goes far far beyond any provisions of the old law. It is like comparing clipping a nail to amputating an arm.
But regardless ... is that your standard of what is right? Your standard is to excuse what was done this week because a much much milder bill with a similar name was signed by a Democrat?!?!?!?!?
That is what you want to make this about?!?!?!?!?
If that is so - is all yours pal. Just leave your Ronald Reagan autographed holy card at the door and flush the so called 'small government Republican principles' down the toilet with the rest of the crap.
Years ago we had principled conservatives that stood for principle. I can see there are none here.
The Senate stripped out a provision that would have allowed a firm to be named emergency financial manager and added provisions to increase an emergency's financial manager's accountability to the Legislature and the state treasurer. The act allows emergency financial managers, appointed by the governor, to overrule elected officials and dissolve units of government and school districts as they work to fix a municipality's or district's finances.
1. Under current law, the EFM can be sued personally. Given that actions by an EFM will almost certainly be controversial, and harassing lawsuits are likely, it is essential that an EFM’s personal assets be protected. Making the EFM an employee of the state treasury department with access to the legal staff of the attorney general would make the present lack of indemnification for an EFM largely moot. Harassing lawsuits by local bargaining units or other affected entities or individuals would be defended by the state – an entity that has the depth of financial resources to discourage the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
2. The present Act lists the powers of an EFM, which are extensive but are not all-inclusive. This can allow the governing body to impede the overall effort of the EFM to deal with the municipality’s fiscal crisis. The Act should state that the EFM replaces and takes on the powers of the governing body (mayor and council or school board.)
3. Charter provisions, especially in old charters, can prevent or make it difficult for an EFM to make necessary structural changes to address financial problems. The EFM should have the power to review charter provisions that frustrate the process of cleaning up and streamlining a municipality’s financial functions.
4. Presently, most labor contracts provide for mandatory continuation of an expired contract until a new one is negotiated. This means municipalities have no opportunity to take advantage of lower-cost service providers. Additionally, in the case of public safety unions, municipalities must adhere to the provisions of Act 312, which mandates that when a municipality and union cannot agree on the terms of a new contract they must go to binding arbitration. In most cases, it takes nearly two years or longer to complete the process, and the legal costs are substantial. Furthermore, municipalities rarely reduce costs by going through the Act 312 process but rather, at best, limit the amount of increased expenses. Act 312 should be repealed in its entirety.
pbrauer said:Don't get your panties in a bunch, the Governor can address any old thing he/she wants to. However, the reason a candidate wouldn't mention certain things, is because they may not get elected in the first place. This is not rocket science, Whoian, In fact, there are polls which show that in a rematch Walker's Democratic opponent would beat Walker. We will see what happens after Walker has been in office one year. Stay tuned!!
link please?
what do you do when you obligate yourself to a debtHow are you going to pay for it?
i missed out on the wealth distribution of the 1400's. please show us in what cultures such a redistribution of wealth took place during the 15th centuryWealth redistribution. Progressives want all the money to be placed in the hands of a priviledged few--the nobility--while the people--the peasantry--are subject to their rules, wims, never having a hope in hell of getting ahead in life, because we've been forced to become dependent on their hand outs. Sounds like Medieval Europe, to me.
In case you haven't noticed, the people with the real authority--that's us--have decided to repeal the so-called, "progressive reforms".
More people, everyday, are realizing that those progressive reforms are pushing farther into the 15th Century rather than the 21st Century.
The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any "law impairing the obligation of contracts."
These propositions may be considered consequent axioms in our jurisprudence: The laws which exist at the time and place of the making of a contract, and where it is to be performed, enter into and form a part of it. This embraces alike those which affect its validity, construction, discharge, and enforcement.
Nothing is more material to the obligation of a contract than the means of its enforcement. The ideas of validity
Page 83 U. S. 318
and remedy are inseparable, and both are parts of the obligation which is guaranteed by the Constitution against impairment.
The obligation of a contract "is the law which binds the parties to perform their agreement."
Any impairment of the obligation of a contract -- the degree of impairment is immaterial -- is within the prohibition of the Constitution.
The states may change the remedy, provided no substantial right secured by the contract is impaired. Whenever such a result is produced by the act in question, to that extent it is void. The states are no more permitted to impair the efficacy of a contract in this way than to attack its vitality in any other manner. Against all assaults coming from that quarter, whatever guise they may assume, the contract is shielded by the Constitution. It must be left with the same force and effect, including the substantial means of enforcement, which existed when it was made. The guarantee of the Constitution gives it protection to that extent.
what do you do when you obligate yourself to a debt
do you find some basis to renege and welch on the contract you executed. A pension benefit, in this instance
or do you pay what you owe
rhetorical question. I, as the other forumites, know from your posts what your answer is
i missed out on the wealth distribution of the 1400's. Please show us in what cultures such a redistribution of wealth took place during the 15th century
and you do seem to be confused. The progressives today generally believe that the wealth is concentrated disproportionately to too few. The very opposite of what you pretend with your weak (and bogus) effort at a nobility analogy
since this graph was constructed, the gap between rich and poor is even wider.
70% of wealth is held by 10% of the citizens
59% of the wealth is owned by 5% of our population
34% - over one-third - of the wealth is held by 1% of our people
0.2% of the wealth is held by 40% of our population
so, there is my data, your turn to show me your evidence of wealth redistribution in the 1400s
i'm betting against you
If Walker thought he was doing the correct thing, he should have mentioned it in his campaign, not spring it on the electorate once he took office. The guy is an authoritarian dictator or should I say dick tator.
Yeah, I've seen that narrative lately being bandied about by the left. It's utter nonsense, of course, but any little bit helps when the best you can do is grasp at straws.
Do you have a copy of a Walker campaign commercial or speech where he clearly laid out his plan to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions? The people of WI either missed the public unveiling of his scheme or he never mentioned it during the campaign. I'm guessing the latter; because WI is a strong union state and I highly doubt that WI voters would have elected Walker if he had been upfront about his intentions regarding unions.
Ah Bull. You libs just can't get it that the gravy train is coming to a halt.
j-mac
Ah Bull. You libs just can't get it that the gravy train is coming to a halt.
j-mac
Do you have a copy of a Walker campaign commercial or speech where he clearly laid out his plan to end collective bargaining rights for public sector unions? The people of WI either missed the public unveiling of his scheme or he never mentioned it during the campaign. I'm guessing the latter; because WI is a strong union state and I highly doubt that WI voters would have elected Walker if he had been upfront about his intentions regarding unions.
You're confused again. A judge put a halt to the bill and, thanks to recall efforts, several Republican state legislators will soon be up for recall. Because of the threat of recall, I'm guessing some of those Republicans will have second thoughts on their vote when the bill comes up again (assuming it gets reversed through the courts).
Anyway, from your answer it sounds like you're in the possession of a Walker campaign ad or speech where he mentions his intentions regarding unions. Could you link it? I'd like to check it out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?