Users who Dugg This
The Atlantic
6534 Followers
Daina Peter
228 Followers
Carly Wilson
3024 Followers
Mike Hayes
903 Followers
luv2luvMar 16, 2011
The media is having a field day with this but in all honesty do you think they're going to actually do something that would result in a full revolt of government??
ageofmasteryMar 16, 2011
Yes, they really seem to think they're untouchable
relengaMar 17, 2011
I doubt it, the Democrats thought they were untouchable in 2008, by 2010 they were in full retreat and got clobbered. No one is untouchable.
YachtRokrMar 16, 2011
I have to agree with ageofmastery. Republicans feel they are invincible and have no intent on backing off of their fascist agenda.
I realize the term, "fascist", may offend the sensibilities of many conservatives on Digg, but there's no mistaking the stench of these actions by Republicans in state and federal government. As the old saying goes, "if the shoe fits..."
crashsuitMar 16, 2011
"...then hey, free shoe."
eraptorMar 16, 2011
You're right, because Republicans have never been above theft.
paranor01Mar 17, 2011
Someone tried to give W a shoe didn't they?
sabz5150Mar 17, 2011
Two, in fact.
relengaMar 17, 2011
Obama had a book thrown at him.
paranor01Mar 17, 2011
troll fail
crashsuitMar 18, 2011
I'm over here laughing that people are responding to a hidden comment. I'm on the same side here. I was trying to be light-hearted but I forgot The Internet Is Serious Business.
letherialMar 18, 2011
that's just socialism right there...your free shoe is destroying the 'real America'
eraptorMar 16, 2011
I couldn't agree more. It's time to confront this national disgrace.
relengaMar 17, 2011
Fascist? I doubt it. I think they are pretty focused on dealing with the deficits though. Unions that drive up costs and drive down service while funding Democrats that keep them in power is a vicious circle that has to end.
Why would a government employee need a union anyway?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicMar 17, 2011
Why would a government employee need to be denied the right to be in a union?
relengaMar 17, 2011
Even FDR, the patron saint of the labor movement, argued against public unions. They create too much conflict of interest, public employees, negotiating with other public employees and funding the campaigns of the politicians who hire employees and negotiate with unions. These are some of the reasons that public employees make more money than private industry for the first time in our history.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicMar 17, 2011
So what? You point is that people are too stupid to elect people that work in their best interest?
relengaMar 17, 2011
It is more about conflict of interest, fraud, stealing.
Basically electing someone to give you stuff that is not theirs.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
@relenga,
"It is more about conflict of interest, fraud, stealing."
I couldn't agree more with this statement, so when do you suppose we'll see Republicans opposing this kind of inappropriate behavior from U.S. corporate interest groups? After all, corporate lobbying and political influence peddling costs the American people TRILLIONS more than unions do.
Oh, that's right, NEVER.
Let us know if you ever develop a conscience or fair-minded objectivity. Until then, we'll simply Digg you down to the basement with the other ideological loonies.
letherialMar 18, 2011
ya errrr...ya why would people need a union and elected representatives and local government who needs them!!!
vectorbMar 17, 2011
You can deal with deficits without giving away our rights, tax money, government away to corporations. The Republicans have, since their tea party members showed up, have become much more fascist.
relengaMar 17, 2011
Being fiscally conservative has nothing to do with being fascist. In fact the public unions and how they deal with the tax payers and politicians act much more fascist than anything the republicans have done.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
quipster99Mar 17, 2011
I don't mean to s**t all over your point here or anything... but....
The Fourteen Signs of Fascism
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
miklkitMar 17, 2011
Excellent post quipster99. :0)
vectorbMar 17, 2011
The unions are not our government or elected officials. They do not set laws. I think you are just randomly pulling out the word fascist out because you dont like the truth.
Its like the Tea Party apologists say "we're not racist you're racist!"Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
@quipster99,
First, I agree with miklkit, excellent posting.
Second, after reading the 14 points, it appears we're headed for a revolution in the U.S. unless something major changes (i.e., economic direction). It's not something I'm hoping for, but it may be the only thing capable of shifting the country's economic direction and eliminating most of the corruption which presently grips the nation and our government.
JewstinMar 17, 2011
Cutting workers wages down may only help create more financial difficulty in the future, and only slow down how much of the deficit can be paid off. If workers are making less, they are going to buying less, they will pay less in taxes, which means the government will have even less revenue, which also means that the national GDP will fall, which in return will only make paying down the deficit even harder.
relengaMar 17, 2011
'may' being the operative word in your argument. Fortunately, the argument is false.
JewstinMar 17, 2011
its not false though, its actually taught in most Economics classes, and it should be a common fear amongst both parties. you want debt to be paid down, take away all the tax cuts from the last ten years like progressives want to, then cut spending on things like SS and medicare (only for a few years) like the GOP and Tea Party want and you'll pay the deficit down. giving tax cuts and subsidies while cutting spending on important things like education and infrastucute just to balance the budget doesn't pay down any kind of deficit, and will only cause more harm in the future.
relengaMar 17, 2011
I have taken years of economics class, undergrad, grad and post grad. I would say that you very much oversimplify what is taught and the conclusions that you can to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JewstinMar 17, 2011
Probably because i have only taken a few economics courses, Ive taken way more accounting courses.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
@relenga,
If you were as knowledgeable of economics as you claim, you wouldn't be posting most of the illogical comments we've seen from you in the past. The economic theories you support have been proven to fail over and over again. Yet, you continue championing this insanity and ignore their widespread social/fiscal consequences (i.e., failure).
It's time for you to demand a refund from whatever matchbook university you attended.
paranor01Mar 18, 2011
@eraptor... or, it lied and is full of s**t as you suspected waaaaaaaaaaaay up.
theswashbucklerMar 16, 2011
Republicans? They'd do it in a heart beat - if they had a heart.
dsmeek36Mar 16, 2011
where i come from, this is called "f**king people over"
devnulldoodMar 17, 2011
Where I come from, the overpowered unions are "f**king people over".
anomaly100Mar 16, 2011
The GOP is going mad for power.
YachtRokrMar 16, 2011
We have the Roberts-led conservative justices on SCOTUS and the Citizens United decision to thank for it.
Samuel Alito's denials to the contrary aren't holding up. Way to go, moron!
anomaly100Mar 19, 2011
That ruling was the most unpatriotic thing and the party that claims to be patriotic condoned it. Unconscionable.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
Power grabs when new admins come in is pretty common.
Power grabs like we have seen in the last few weeks are NOT though.
anomaly100Mar 19, 2011
No it's not and it's scary as hell.
miklkitMar 16, 2011
Since when do appointed officials have power to disband elected governments? Where else in the world has this happened?
We already know that Hitler disbanded the Unions. We also know that he appointed Gaulietners to run cities. Hmm.
davidnivenMar 16, 2011
Godwin fail.
caramba421Mar 16, 2011
...says the guy who brought the following little gem into a discussion of climate change:
"If so, then superior humans are allowed to kill off weaker humans because natural selection and survival of the fittest are part of the natural world too.
At least, that's what Hitler thought. Seriously. Look it up."
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
ohsnap.jpg
davidnivenMar 17, 2011
Are you following me? Weird.
paranor01Mar 17, 2011
don't worry, you're not that important to follow, though you may believe otherwise.
you're just a prolific enough troll that it's difficult not to see your generally wing-nut crazy everywhere on digg.
joe7845Mar 17, 2011
I call spurious application of Godwin's law. Its intent is to stop absurd comparisons, not to stop discussion about how not to repeat history.
The US is currently a country where minorities are demonized, where labor organizations are being attacked, where torture is accepted and torturers go free, etc. None of this is hyperbole.
miklkitMar 17, 2011
And there are people who defend all of those actions here.
jameslowellMar 16, 2011
"Financial martial law?" Is that even a thing?
bdbrMar 16, 2011
It's not in the article referenced by the author, or in the law itself. The law does mention financial emergency, but that doesn't sound nearly as scary so apparently the writer decided to make up a new term.
ageofmasteryMar 17, 2011
The article says a Michigan lawmaker used the term, the Politico article this article links to identifies and quotes him.
"Republican Sen. Jack Brandenburg last week said emergency managers would be deployed only in communities that need “financial martial law.”"
quipster99Mar 17, 2011
Naw, that scary term came from a Republican senator, actually.
Open mouth, insert foot.
Schmuck18Mar 16, 2011
Basically whats happening is similar to bankruptcy, atleast in regards to union contracts here. When a company becomes insolvent and files for bankruptcy it is freed from union contracts. If it chooses to remain open, with union employees it can then re-negotiate those contracts. Or, it can close and all those workers can become unemployed.
Now, a government can't just up and close. So it will be re-negotiating contracts with its public workers union. The union then has the choice to play nice and help close budget gaps by doing things like paying for health insurance and giving up a pension in favor of a 401(k) plan (things us private sector workers have lived comfortably with for years); or they can keep up their ridiculous demands and most of their workers will become unemployed as budget gaps are closed via lay-offs.
This happens all the time to private sector unions, why is everyone so up in arms when the public employees catch up?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireMar 16, 2011
The problem here Schmuck is that they can APPOINT a "manager" who can then simply elminate people ELECTED by the residents of said gov. entity. This has huge implications beyond union busting. What is there to stop them from arbitrarily declaring a city/school district as in trouble for political reasons? How do they then replace said elected officials? A new election? What about other contracts for services-- power, janitorial, infrastructure, water, police, fire, etc. Are those then voided too? They void police and fire contacts and you'll def. see those guys go out on strike. How about municipal bond holders? Are they screwed too?
At the end of the day, it is a state that is usurping power from municipal gov. and voiding the will of the people.
quipster99Mar 17, 2011
Instead of saying "we in the private sector have no rights, and so, public sector employees should have no rights too !" why not say..."Hey, I'm sick of getting f**ked in the ass by rich CEOs, we aught to band together with the public unions, and fight for rights in the private sector"
miklkitMar 17, 2011
I dunno, it seems some people like anal sex.
Schmuck18Mar 17, 2011
I never said private sector workers have no rights. As a matter of fact where I work we have both union and non-union employees. Guess who gets the better deals? Us non-union guys! We work WITH management to get what works best for both parties, not AGAINST them like the unions do.
Much better in the long run, especially as you watch that company stock that makes up half your 401(k) steadily rise.
Private sector doesn't need unions. If you have a skill and are a hard worker your better off without it.
theghoulMar 16, 2011
Our governor use to run Gateway computers...boy I feel safe.
mikelistMar 17, 2011
run it into the ground. his campaign slogan was inaccurate - he's no nerd just because the corporation he was with made computers. "one tough executive" wouldn't have been as amiable and self-effacing, though.
Closed AccountMar 16, 2011
I'm wondering about the purpose of this. I mean, we've all seen Michael Moore pointing his camera at areas of Michigan and shining a light on the run-down aspect of many areas.
Is this because citizens of Michigan are tired of pouring money into Detroit and seeing things mismanaged there?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireMar 16, 2011
The purpose is to give power to a small number of people to "clean house" (read: eliminate union contracts and mass cost cutting via employee attrition)
arpadMar 16, 2011
Funny you should ask.
The Detroit Public Schools district is a effing mess even though it gets about 40% more funding then the state average. It's hundreds of millions of dollars in debt and the school board hasn't done dick about it for *years*. A number of cities, like Pontiac and Benton Harbor are similarly financial messes and their city councils also haven't done a damned thing about it.
So Snyder's going to crack the whip that Jennifer Granholm was too useless to use. During her two terms all these problems were growing and festering and the kewpie doll didn't do a thing.
Well the people of Michigan have clearly gotten tired of the situation because Snyder, an unknown, beat the snot out of his determinedly left-wing opponent Virg Bernero.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ericschc1Mar 16, 2011
By giving non-elected appointees power to dissolve entire cities?!?!
Closed AccountMar 16, 2011
Thanks arpad.
chilidogsMar 17, 2011
No citation required when someone tells you what you want to hear?
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
I sort of figured that arpad is from Michigan.
I asked arpad for citations in your honor.
I seem to remember you yourself commenting frequently without citations....
.....but whatever.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikelistMar 17, 2011
anecdotally, every person i've ever met that graduated from detroit public schools, has an advanced degree (>bachelors). most of them are white and came from comfortable families, but they went to school at cass tech, mumford and other inner city schools.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
Arpad - chilidogs requires citations from you.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
Arpad - chilidogs requires citations from you.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
"I'm wondering about the purpose of this."
Really? You can't see that the "purpose" is to have complete control?
Closed AccountMar 16, 2011
I'm not so sure. Michigan's kind of a notorious example of mismanagement and decay.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
Can't argue that, but this is a classic power grab. Take an issue, ratchet the fear level way up, then grab everything you can before people calm down.
/both sides do it, before anyone gets uppity
Closed AccountMar 16, 2011
It's definitely better to have a discussion about what this is about and why some in Michigan might favor it, than just saying...
"OMG Republicans are Nazis! You know who did this? Hitler!"
I asked the question, is all.
On the one hand, if the federal government moved to overrule states ... I'd be concerned...
But I'm not sure that this equates to that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicMar 17, 2011
Who cares if some people want to allow the Governor to dissolve local governments, does that make it right? Why does Fed vs State government make you change your mind about whether this is right or wrong? Is it simply a constitutional matter for you that the states have a certain amount of independence that you don't think should be applied to cities? I'm not sure why the analogy breaks down for you.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
Oh, and I wanted to say *something* needs to be done. We are talking decades of horrendous decisions.
THIS just isn't that something.
Closed AccountMar 16, 2011
Arpad above had something to contribute.
I think that, probably, the taxpayers of Michigan might be pissed about areas that do not make moves to fix any problems, but vote again and again and again to get tax dollars that they throw down the drain.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
And I dugg him/her up for the comment.
I hesitate to get involved in "union good, union bad" discussions. I've seen teachers unions in my state boot bad teachers and increase test scores/graduation rates. I've also seen the bad like Michigan and Oregon (don't get me started on Oregon and that pile of debt with nothing to show for it).
In bad economic times EVERYTHING gets magnified. I hope Michigan does find a way to fix things. I just don't think this approach is going to work. It frankly reads as an excuse to be tyrants (for lack of a better word) rather than a measure taken to improve the education of children in the state.
mikelistMar 17, 2011
as a lifelong 'gander, i'd say the steep decline started with john engler.
YachtRokrMar 16, 2011
No, that despair is a direct result of free trade and globalization favored by the Republican party (and some Democrats). One can't maintain a home, town or city in the absence of economic opportunities and living wages. The citizens of Michigan had no choice in the matter.
Check out one of Michael's previous documentaries, "Roger and Me", if you really want the answer. It details the causes for that despair quite well.
jdenzerMar 17, 2011
"I'm wondering about the purpose of this."
BS, you do know the purpose. The real question is, do you agree or not. And now somehow Moore serves a purpose to demonstrate the need for this "financial martial law"?
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
I expressed my concerns. But I guess I also sympathize with people in Michigan who are paying high taxes and are concerned about areas that are cesspools of mismanagement.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerMar 17, 2011
"cesspools of mismanagement"
That doesn't mean that those above should be given the power to dissolve local elected official. What makes the GOP so sure that the party in charge won't abuse this ultimate power grab? And how is this any different from the conservatives who grip about the federal infringing on states right?
No matter how mismanaged a area can be, it doesn't mean that the party above should be given the power to step in and dissolve the elected officials. That is what elections are for, no matter how many times the wrong elected officials are voted in. Once we allow the acting party to use that power, we have given up our right and freedom to vote and choose our officials.
No matter how far right you might be, I seriously doubt you are ok with that.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
Well, the USA isn't Michigan.
Everyone basically admits that Detroit is a hell hole.
They even have a hell night, right?
Where people run around looting and burning?
If someone was running around looting and burning Rhode Island....and then asking for more and more money...from the federal government....
Would there be a concern?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerMar 17, 2011
Seriously, what are you talking about? People run around looting and burning? That is your reason for justifying this Govenment takeover. The Gov. would have the power to dissolve elected officials and replace them with pointed officials not elected.
How do you not see that as a complete gov. takeover. For someone who tends to side w/ conservatives and tea bag party. How can you look the other way. It is exactly what the tea baggers fear and cry about everyday. And you embrace in w/ open arms. And try to justify it w/ some lame looting and burning argument. Please don't tell me you are taking your talking points from Beck. I know you are a little smarter than that.
FYI: You know who also did this type of gov. control? Soviets, yes the Communism that you fear so much.
Closed AccountMar 17, 2011
I thought it was Hitler that "did this" ... the Soviets, too?
You seem to be getting a little hysterical tonight.
I suggest you look at the discussion upthread and then try to connect what is being talked about.
Or just call me commiehitlertalibangelical for asking questions about why the people of Michigan might be talking about this.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
unclefireMar 17, 2011
What the heck does that have to do with anything? What they're doing is flat out wrong.
The thing you're referring to is "Devil's Night" and yes, Detroit is a hell hole.
mikelistMar 17, 2011
"i know we seem to be doing away with democracy, but just give it a chance. it's not really big corporate sponsored government, it's what i did to make gateway the successful computer company it is today".
not a quote, but if there's anything unreasonable about my paraphrase, i'm sure you'll tell me.
jkhugginsMar 16, 2011
Don't like it? Fine. Manage your city responsibly so that you don't get into trouble, where the state has to step in and appoint an emergency manager.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ageofmasteryMar 16, 2011
So since the state of Michigan has fiscal problems it would be ok for Obama to appoint somebody to fire the governor and run it as he sees fit?
Of course it's all a moot discussion, this will get struck down in court and the state will get it's ass sued off.
ericschc1Mar 16, 2011
Interesting point. When Obama injected less influence than this into the automotive industry, the right has cried foul ever since, calling it socialism.
Now a Republican governor is appointing people (not even elected positions here, no means to contest or check these appointees) with the power to dissolve school boards, city councils and entire cities & that level of political influence is a-okay with conservatives?
jkhugginsMar 16, 2011
Look, we're talking about *EMERGENCY* managers. It's not like this happens in Michigan every day.
I've seen this happen twice in recent memory in Michigan --- most recently in Flint. It happened in Flint because the mayor and the city council had their heads so firmly stuck up their behinds that they couldn't manage the city, period. They'd made way too many "binding" financial agreements (e.g. with unions) and revenue was heading downward with no prospects for increasing it. Their response was to keep spending more money and point fingers at each other regarding who was responsible. After the mayor was recalled (in a costly election), the state stepped in to appoint a financial manager. Everybody hated him ... but when he left, the budget was balanced and the city was paying off its debts.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ageofmasteryMar 16, 2011
This article is talking about the bill sent to the governor for signing, (he's said he's in favor of it), not the existing law.
Go back, read the article, then comment.
jkhugginsMar 17, 2011
Look, I live in this state. Read the original Politico article that this article links to, not the misleading summary.
Emergency managers ALREADY EXIST. They've already been used in the past. The governor can already step into a city and appoint an emergency manager. All this does is expand their powers a bit further.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
protogenxlMar 16, 2011
Isn't this how OCP took over the Old Detroit Police Force?
relengaMar 16, 2011
Finally. Now maybe we can get some good education for our students at a price we can afford.
Now we can:
- fire teachers that don't perform
- when lay-offs come, we can lay off the worse performers not the newest.
- we can get the price of a teacher below 100k, so that maybe we can hire more and better teachers
- we can get teachers to work around the year instead over about half the year like they do now.
End result, maybe we can improve our education system so that our kids can compete with kids around the world who can actually read and write.
Good riddance.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
avalonMar 16, 2011
Really? Do you have any idea of what it's like to be a teacher these days? My wife is a teacher in Virginia and it's no walk in park.
"Finally. Now maybe we can get some good education for our students at a price we can afford"
-- really?! The right doesn't want to pay taxes to pay for schools now! My wife has to buy pencils for the students because the school doesn't have a budget for it. She has to work til 6-7pm at night, without pay, to keep caught up on grading and still can't. She's expected to keep peace and try and make 35+ kids who don't care learn something new, and the only support from parents is to blame her when their kid does something wrong.
"- we can get the price of a teacher below 100k, so that maybe we can hire more and better teachers" - I don't know of any teachers that make that much. Perhaps the administrators do, but you guys don't mind CEO's that make billions...
"we can get teachers to work around the year instead over about half the year like they do now." - two points here: 1) you do realize that teachers only get paid for the part of the year they work, right? 2) they still have to spend their summer planning the next year, taking college courses to keep their teaching certificate, all out their own money, and keeping up-to-date on changes in curriculum.
"End result, maybe we can improve our education system so that our kids can compete with kids around the world who can actually read and write."
- perhaps if the GOP would be more inclined to raise taxes to support good schools, they would then get good schools. But the truth is that the right has never liked public education and does it's best to destroy it at every chance. They like letting people who make over a million a year keep more of their money with tax breaks, but pay a hard working teacher some fraction of that and it's the end of the world! The priorities here are all messed up. In my humble opinion, a smart populace will not vote conservatively and the Right knows it, so they have to keep everyone dumb and afraid to stay in power.
eraptorMar 16, 2011
Excellent points. Thank you for sharing.
I feel blessed to have a child in the Virginia public school system and teachers, like your wife, have my FULL support.
I don't know what's happened to the Republican party in this country, but it's been derailed by fiscal insanity.
relengaMar 16, 2011
It should not be a Republican thing. Local, state and federal governments are broke. Local and state governments cannot go into debt, so they have to cut costs. The federal government debt is over $140,000 per person in the US.
The Republicans are not leading a war against the poor, the educators or anyone else, they are trying to cut costs so that the country can continue to operate.
If they don't and the deficit continues to climb, the US will have to raise interest rates, raise tax rates, print money (raising inflation). These moves have been done many times by many countries (mostly third world, btw) in the past and have worked but they tend to hurt the lower and middle classes much worse than the rich.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 16, 2011
Just out of curiosity, what do you think caused those local/state/federal deficits?
Haven't you wondered WHY the cause is NEVER discussed by Republicans as they pursue these government cuts? After all, wouldn't it be wiser to tackle the CAUSE instead of the "symptoms" (i.e., deficits) created? Just so you know, those deficits were created by drastic government revenue shortfalls created by irresponsible tax cuts/benefits, globalization and Wall Street's white collar crimes. So, while cutting government services will destroy our infrastructure, it won't solve the fiscal/economic crisis.
The ONLY way to reduce the deficit is by creating revenue. The Republican strategy amounts to quitting your job in order to pay bills. That's why I oppose it.
As for your denials regarding Republican class warfare against the poor, middle class and teachers, irrefutable economic trends/fugures don't support your assumptions. Check it out for yourself (pay particular attention to the charts):
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4
The ONLY way to tackle the government revenue shortfall is by increasing tax rates in accordance with the distribution of financial resources and finally coming to terms with the imbalance of trade, both of which are unsustainable. The nation's financial liabilities have been thrown onto the shoulders of those least capable of paying for them. It's time for those capable of shouldering this financial burden to do so. I'm talking about U.S. corporations, foreign interests and the top 2-5%. Watching Exxon, the most profitable company in the world, evade it's tax liabilities and pay NO taxes is a disgrace.
imurphsMar 17, 2011
1. Exxon does pay taxes.
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/
2. The government has not shown its capable of receiving MORE revenue (increased taxes) and NOT spend the money, instead of using it for debt, deficit, etc... Are you going to give a recovering alcoholic, alcohol to help him kick the habit?
3. Nation's financial liabilities have been thrown onto the shoulders of those least capable of paying? I'm not sure if that is worded funny, but the most taxes are paid by the top 5-10%...
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html
If you believe the CBO (which can ONLY work the numbers its given, which are not necessarily accurate) the top 1% still pay 30% of taxes (that is just 1%)
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/68094
Here is an article with a couple of neat graphs...
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
This is funny... the top 50% pay 96% of taxes? Lol yeah RIGHT!! Oh wait...
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htm
The problem is a combination of things, lack of revenue (which does NOT equate to higher taxes, but includes things like unemployment and shipping jobs overseas because of piss-poor requirements in the USA), and MASSIVE spending (including the massive defense budgets, bailouts, entitlement programs and over-bloated social programs). ALL these things need to be corrected AND blamed.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
relengaMar 17, 2011
local/state/federal deficits were caused by spending more than they took in. Before you say, see raise taxes, look at how much spending has increased in real terms by all three. We spend much more at every level than we have in our history. Entitlements are way up, costs to do anything are way up.
Your second paragraph makes a ton of conclusions that are not correct and are only accepted by people on the far left.
Your third paragraph says that only way to cut deficits is by creating revenue. That is completely untrue. You can cut deficits by cutting spending. If you raise taxes, people will move away and change their behavior. You have the typical liberal disease of denying unintended consequences. Raising taxes will change people’s behavior. Look at what happened when Michigan or California raised taxes. There was a massive exodus of business out of the state. End result deficits climbed as revenue dropped and expenses increased.
I looked at your charts.
1. Wealth Gap – I agree it is there. I don’t agree that it is bad because the poor are not that poor especially relative to US citizens in the great depression. Poor people are not starving these days, in fact, quite the opposite. Poor people then lived in dirt. Poor people now live in apartments, have SUVs, have big screen TVs and video games and are probably over weight. A relative wealth gap is meaningless and will continue in the future. The thing that is important is the standard of living of the poor and it is high in the US, and the highest it has ever been.
2. Tax Rate – yes it is lower and we have a much more dynamic economy because of it. If you increase taxes, you drive business away or they don’t get started. Liberals hate this definition because for some reason they love to tax people, but I would argue that there is an optimal tax rate that increases the tax base. More tax is not better the correct rate is the thing to have. Funny that Obama extended Bush’s tax cuts and then heaped on a whole bunch more that no one wanted, don’t you think.
3. Distribution of Wealth – does not matter. The super rich like Bill Gates do a lot with their money that makes the world better. They invest, they give, they hire. The important thing is standard of living of the poor which is the best it has ever been in history, right now in the US.
4. Stock and Bond ownership – the amazing thing here is how much the top 50% own, it has shifted a lot towards lower income people despite being thrown off by a few extraordinarily rich people. No problem with this slide, it is good news.
5. Share of Capital Income – follows number 4. It is predictable given the global economy. Expect this to continue.
6. CEO Pay – in a world where the few people that know how to amass capital and build things, expect the CEOs to do well. Lower level workers are starting to compete with people in China, etc. Expect this trend to continue. Tell your kids to get educated so that they are not competing on labor rates.
7. Hourly earnings – expect this to continue.
Ok out of time and desire on your slides. I don’t think that they argue for what you think they argue for.
Your last paragraph is a bit mind bogglingly out of touch with reality and how things work. Lack desire to argue with you on it at this point as I have to go do my taxes (I pay a lot by the way).Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
1. As a corporate tax specialist, I'm well aware of the games companies like Exxon play. If it's 10-K stated it paid no income taxes, then it didn't. This article was nothing but a vapid attempt to blunt justifiable anger across the country. It's called PR spin. Consider the source of the article...Forbes ('nuff said)
2. While the government needs to be more efficient than it has in the past, this isn't sufficient justification to starve it to the point it is no longer effective. Remember the gulf oil spill? That pathetic response was a DIRECT effect of a broken, weakened government. If you think that's bad, just wait until the Chinese launch a war against us. It's not a matter of if, but when.
3. Ever heard the phrase, "don't bulls**t a bulls**tter". Well, the same applies to using statistics with a statistician who also happens to be an expert in finance, economics and taxes. The REASON the top 2-5% pay a larger share of the nation's tax burden is because they have accumulated the vast majority of the nation's wealth and a greater proportion of the nation's income than deserved. Imagine someone taking 85% of your money, then sticking you with 50% of the bill. Funny, huh?
Have you ever taken the time to see where the government spent the money they've been accused of wasting by Republicans? If not, make the effort. It tends to be a real eye-opener for most conservatives.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
@relenga,
I don't know where your got your economic/financial education but it is SERIOUSLY deficient.
First, there are two core elements to every financial statement, expenses AND REVENUE. Unless a person looks at BOTH elements (and their respective historical trends), they reach horrendous conclusions and make bad financial decisions. Your persistent focus on expenses ALONE proves that you lack the competence to manage ANY financial matters whatsoever. The same goes for any Republican who shares your financial "tunnel vision". Wise financial/business managers always consider BOTH elements before pursuing ANY financial policy decision.
While you mistake my second paragraph for "left wing opinion", you should know that it's a widely accepted view among most professional financial managers and executives who are familiar with our country's economy (even when they don't admit it for political purposes).
You REALLY need to lay off the Ayn Rand bulls**t about corporations fleeing America if tax rates rise. Companies who have left (and those preparing to do so), are motivated by cheap labor in the developing world (about $2/day, try living on that wage in the U.S.), NOT taxes. U.S. tax policy is a minor inconvenience. By the way, absent current U.S. free trade agreements, this practice wouldn't be feasible AND there would be no motivation to flee the U.S. Also, comparing state tax policies to federal tax policies is an apples and oranges comparison. It's relatively cheap to move across state lines, but the same isn't true when fleeing the country. There are a LOT of hidden costs and business risks in the developing world. So, your assumption that the developing world is a more hospitable and welcoming environment when U.S. taxes rise is DEEPLY misguided and ill informed. For future reference, this particular conservative "talking point" holds no water.
I read your responses to the slides with low expectations and you easily met those low standards. I expected unfounded denial and that's what you delivered. Know this, it's up to the American people to choose the country's economic direction, NOT authoritarian conservatives. Now that the Republican/Conservative political agendas are on full display, your relevance to the nation will rapidly deteriorate and you've only brought it down upon yourselves. We implemented conservative economic/fiscal policies during the Reagan and Bush Administrations. Predictably, they failed the country EVERY time they were implemented.
Finally, the fact that conservatives, such as yourself, refuse to recognize the fiscal/economic deterioration caused by your poorly conceived fiscal/economic policies PROVES just how out of touch with reality you really are. Those charts proved this truth beyond all shadow of doubt and your inability to refute ANY of them validates this point. While you appear to believe that your acknowledgement of the facts defuses the explosive nature of these trends, it does not. Lesser fools have made similar social-economic mistakes in the past and it never ended well for them.
imurphsMar 16, 2011
1. The right (or real right, not the psycho right) wants private education. Parents pay out of pocket and CHOOSE the school they go to. Private education allows for better learning because teachers CAN be let go if they do not perform. This is also private education w/o being taxed by the Fed to PAY for other people's school (because Public Education wouldn't exist).
2. Relenga may have been off the mark for Virginia, but many teachers make 6 figures, and if you include professors from higher education, even in Virginia, they are bound to make near or over 6 figures. I disagree with him that they need to be below or above. They should be paid what they (the individual) is worth, not what the State Teachers union dictates what all teachers must be paid thus punishing the good performing teachers and giving too much to crappy teachers.
3. Teachers to do not have to do yearly courses for their credentials, and curriculum also does not change yearly (most teachers teach the same grade/class and books don't change each year). Also, teachers can be paid for the entire year, they get their salary divided by 8, 10, or 12 months, so that is THEIR call. Also, any classes or things she has to buy is a write-off for a work expense, so you can get a % of your money back.
4. Raises taxes is not the answer. Eliminating a failed public education system (thusly the taxation), and moving to a private education system, appears to be the answer. Teachers who are good would get paid better, teachers who suck would get fired because they are not saved by tenure. Their would be competition between schools in cities for better sports, academics, extracurriculars, etc... giving parents (and teachers) the ability to choose where they want their kids to go (or to work).
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/on-federal-education-think-progress-should-think-harder/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/education-and-society/
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/education/timelineComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
imurphsMar 16, 2011
I would like to add, that I do believe teachers are underpaid and do not have all the resources that they may need (or desire).
I just do not believe that the current system (which has had many decades to do so) is providing these things, and makes it difficult for quality teachers to shine while letting poor teachers stay even with the good ones and giving everyone full retirement when a certain percentage doesn't even deserve to have had a job because they suck.
The private system allows for competitive pay between schools, including things like 401k, health insurances etc... as well as the un-fun ability to fire people who are not meeting standardsComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donnyw1967Mar 16, 2011
And what happens to the poor and working poor? NO education? But it certainly would keep them in their place. It's just so ..Republican, right wing bull s**t. Keep the p0or, in their place.
imurphsMar 16, 2011
No, this is the ignorance to these things.
#1 those people (all people) will not be paying school taxes to the federal government, so they would have that extra money.
#2. Private schools (don't think religious, just private) would see those smaller areas that are poor or poorer as a business opportunity.... if they are the only ones their, charging what they see fit for the demographic, they would be the only ones making money, the more money they make the more they can improve the school (facilities, textbooks, playgrounds, computers) which in turn starts to better the education.
#3. Clearly this won't ever happen, because the Federal government has a death grip on Americans, but the way to phase into this would also be to allow federal schools to still exist **IF** the presence of a private school does not appear in certain areas... those citizens pay for those schools through taxes (or payments that are subsidized) until a time when a private school decides they want to make money (and it would happen).
But thanks for being ignorant about it, and also for throwing all people who lean one way or the other into one massive group. I think that education is one of the most important domestic issues in our country, but you're right.... I (and *ALL* of "my" [my is " " because I'm not a Republican] ilk) want to see the poor and working poor to be idiots and never succeed. It's not the decades and decades of money our government has unsuccessfully s**t in to the public education system which has steadily dropped,or stayed stagnant, in all forms of testing since the government took over... Kudos to you for figuring me out!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donnyw1967Mar 16, 2011
The reason they started public education was to stop the educational disparity between the classes, I am certain if not for public education I would not have the ability to right this response,, I grew up in the working poor housing projects, we barely had enough for clothing and food let alone education, you self righteous twit, and the same would be true for many Americans, Especially in this time of massive layoffs and economic uncertainty. How would like to make the choice for your children whether the should eat or get an education?
imurphsMar 16, 2011
You would have noticed the part where there would be NO school tax.... if you are not being taxed for something... you have MONEY.... money is then spent on school, its the same money your parents would have ALREADY SPENT, they just didn't *know* what they were spending it on, you "twit".
You clearly didn't even read my response, because a private school is a BUSINESS, and a business isn't going to roll into south LA and charge $500/mo for kids to go to school, they would charge $50, $75, maybe $100... but remember, this is money that has been SAVED from NOT being taxed....
But your response is what I expect from someone who is being held by the throat of the government... You do realize a private school could also be a SPONSORED school... Local stores, business, etc.. can donate money to subsidize the cost of tuition to free or cheap with a goal that the families will appreciate the assistance and shop at those stores... You have a very narrow view that is jaded by a system that continually fails the same people you're trying to protect.
Side Note:
I would make the choice to eat, because even though I feel education is of vital importance in our country, and in general, I understand that education is not a right, but a privilege. Or, better yet, I would better myself and not use excuses.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ncmusicMar 17, 2011
Typically property taxes at the local level pay for things like school. If you don't own property how do you realize any savings to be able to pay for school? As a 5 year old you would choose to better yourself?
relengaMar 16, 2011
If you look at Republican history, they are much more likely to want to provide vouchers to allow parents of any income level to send their children to the best school they can find.
You will also see that Democrats and Unions fight this.
If anything, Democrats want kids to go to crappy public schools because this is how unions get funded.
Republicans are trying to get the best schools for the best price for all kids so that the US will be competitive in the long terms.
Democrats want to raise taxes and increase funding to failed schools so that nothing changes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
While I see the merits of offering private school alternatives, I have to disagree with your belief that public education should be defunded (that would amount to "throwing the baby out with the bath water"). If most of us go back our family trees far enough, we'd find that MOST of us owe our fortunes to the benefits of a public education system. I happen to be one of them. That's why I support its presence in our society. This IS the social ladder most of us climb to better our lives and that of our families.
As for your belief that you don't want to pay for other people's education. It appears you've lost sight of a very important social principle we've held in this country for a LONG time...national interest. Do you enjoy getting the correct change when you pay for something? The U.S. workforce is drawn from the public education system. Imagine what would happen if literacy rates plummeted in the country. If you'd like a peek, go to any third world country as that would be our country's destination after embracing this policy.
Is there room to improve our educational system? YES, but remember it's not free (just look at private school tuition rates) and a deteriorating educational system is not in the country's best interest or yours. Contrary to what some believe, we ALL suffer from a weak educational system.
imurphsMar 17, 2011
You are implying that because public schools wouldn't exist (which I mentioned would not likely be the case, it would be a phasing out) that private schools would cause illiteracy.... You are also attributing something (success and wealth) to something that can also be attributed to the other (private education) but you never experienced the alternative so don't recognize it as an alternative.
I also didn't say I don't want to pay for others educations (in so many words) I said that the current system has failed a vast majority of people, and continues to do so even though we threw $100 billion at it last year**. My suggestion/alternative does make it so you don't pay for others education but that is how that system works (plus everyone is saving the schooling taxation).
Can you provide links where private education has failed? And try to provide some from reasonable countries... comparing America to a 3rd world country is not exactly reasonable when people here are upset about not having a nice car and people there are excited to have a bike.
**Dept. of EDU spending graph.... http://www.federalbudget.com/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donnyw1967Mar 17, 2011
I had to reply down here, it didn't let me reply up top, and I did notice you said no school tax, what you fail to comprehend is that if you are poor you pay no taxes, therefore this twits parents would not have saved any money as you have stated, and in your ideal world of hoping that the local stores pick up the tab I highly doubt that is a viable solution to our education problem, Now you may want to take the silver spoon out of your mouth and stick it someplace else. Sorry for jumping your thread Erapter.
imurphsMar 17, 2011
So you're ok with supporting a failing school system, awesome. That is exactly what the government wants... of course no business will sponsor schools, of course the private schools would make it un-affordable to poor people...
How about you say "why" those things are not viable options...Stores love advertisements, if Walmart or Target supported "low income private schools to subsidize the tuition costs for low income families" those establishments would see huge increases in money because people like those kinds of stories and would thusly go SHOP at those stores and they would recover their loses quite fast!
How its so great of Target or Walmart to donate money, volunteers, products, supplies, etc... those are the business aspects that most people don't understand, but they exist and those places would act on those opportunities. If you want proof they do here are a bunch of things this 1 company does...
http://walmartstores.com/CommunityGiving/8979.aspx
But no! Lets rest on our laurels and continue to rank lower and lower in reading, writing, and arithmetic and spend $100 billion a year doing so!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
donnyw1967Mar 17, 2011
232,458,000 Dept of labor working adults 2009
us census 12% poor 13% working poor equals
58,114,500 working poor and poor adults times 2 children average (although my personal observation tells me it should be 4 children, poor folks seem to have more children) equals 116,229,000 children that need their education paid for by the grace of walmart for a monthly cost of $50 per child, your lowest monthly estimate totals
$5,811,450,000 per month or annually cost of
$69,737,400,000 so I contend that at a cost of over 5 billion a month in corporate donations this is not a viable option. I don't think you see the full scope of the situation.. Class division is blinding, when I was young all the kids in the project thought the middle class were wealthy over privilaged whiners, then as I moved up to middle they all thought of the poor as lazy ignorant leeches. You may want to consider others and not just yourself, and I hope you don't pass these narrow minded ideas on. And yes there are many issues with public schools, however they certainly beat having no education.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
@imurphs,
Regardless of whether we eliminate or cripple public education (which we've already done in the U.S.), there's no mistaking the broader effect of a weakened public education system...low skill levels among the majority of the U.S. workforce. As such, this would prove to be a disastrous public/economic policy.
For what it's worth, I've been fortunate enough to attend BOTH public and private school systems. Historically speaking, most state legislators favor applying budget cuts towards public education rather than their pals in the private sector. That's why public education is currently unable to deliver the educational standards it once did in the nation. As an example, the North Carolina State Legislature has historically starved elementary and high school budgets in favor of their college system. As a direct result, many of the in-state students usually lack the skills to survive in the college environment and fail to earn a college degree. I don't mean to pick on NC as this appears to be a widespread trend in states.
I understand the fiscal conflict faced by parents who prefer sending their kids to private schools (for many reasons, some valid...some not), but that's a choice they've made and neither public school students nor the nation should be made to suffer for that choice. Parents in one Miami school district once faced the SAME dilemma, but rather than resist they crafted an alternative solution and invested their private school tuition into the local schools. The result was that they turned those local schools around and succeeded in raising the quality of education for everyone in the community. I should point out that they only agreed to do so as long as the local schools instituted significant reforms and higher teacher/student standards. It proved to be a win-win situation.
For what it's worth I support the need to raise educational standards in the U.S., but that would be an unlikely probability under the scenario you appear to favor. I also realize that there will always be a need for private schools in the U.S. (to meet needs that would otherwise be unmet), but it shouldn't come at the expense of the U.S. public education system.
relengaMar 16, 2011
Hi Avalon,
Wow, where to start... I agree that a lot of teachers are underpaid. The problem is that the education system is very expensive. While teachers like your wife may be earning 50kish, the system is spending 100+k per teacher. Because of how the system has been managed, there is much more money going into administration and audit,etc than to teachers. Maybe we should have more teachers who are paid more and less people looking over their shoulders.
I do think students should be in class more. Summer breaks used to make sense when kids helped on the farm. That is not the case any more. Our students are not graduating and the ones that do don't have the skills that they need to compete on a global level. Obviously there is a bunch of ways to fix this, but one of the things that does not help is having unions who do not want any change and will fight against any change.
I don't think this should be a Dem v. Rep thing or a tax versus cut tax thing. It should be a lets figure out how to make sure all of our students are better prepped to compete in the world than any other students.
To your 'tax the rich point', I don't think it is that simple. We (local, state and federal gov'ts) have to be competitive on taxes. If you raise taxes, people will change their behavior. People and companies will move away. People will change how they work. People are very rational and will avoid taxes. The point being is that you need to have a more sophisticated answer than 'lets just raise taxes from the mean and greedy rich and give it to the poor teachers'. It is just not that simple.
I would also argue that we spend more per student than almost the rest of the world (see link below) but have horrible scores. Clearly something is wrong and something needs to change. you may not agree, but I think losing unions which do nothing to add to scholastic success and create a lot of friction and cost would be a good idea.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-studentComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 16, 2011
@relenga,
You don't get it. The attacks against the teachers unions will GUT our educational infrastructure. After that happens, you won't have to worry about educating your kids because we won't have the professional expertise or EXPERIENCE to give them the skills they'll need to compete. This financial move will do nothing but set our country BACK and make us LESS competitive.
Our global "competitors" are THROWING money at their educational systems, they aren't pursuing the same insanity we are...gutting our educational system so the top 2-5% of society can get more tax breaks. Those savings you THINK Republicans are reinvesting into our educational system are actually going into the pockets of their political contributors, NOT yours. Wake up, you fool.
relengaMar 16, 2011
Wrong. Loosing unions will not gut the system. There are a ton of non-union schools that are doing fine. Unions do nothing to make schools operate better or to make students score better. They are all and only about getting more pay and benefits for teachers.
Just look at Wisconsin's education union's (WEAC) website on their priorities...it is about getting stuff for teachers and not about making students do better
http://www.weac.org/About_WEAC/strategies_priorities/index.aspx
Our global 'competitors' are not throwing money at education. The US spends more per student than every country except two (in two very expensive countries), yet our scores are average or below.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_spe_per_sec_sch_stu-spending-per-secondary-school-studentComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
You couldn't be more wrong on the issue of unions. As someone who watched as private sector unions were systematically attacked and undermined in the SAME fashion as we're now witnessing with public sector unions, I'm here to tell you that the country will SUFFER if the Republicans succeed in their efforts. The living standards currently enjoyed by the U.S. middle class are a DIRECT result of previous union struggles. Once private sector unions were dismantled, working conditions began to rapidly deteriorate to the point job security, retirement and benefits are virtually nonexistent. This is NOT a track record of economic success for MOST Americans or these ideologically-driven public policies.
Have the unions overreached in the past? Yes, but not nearly as much as the private sector (i.e., corporate interests) has in undermining U.S. economic interests/opportunities. The state of our economy is proof of your mistaken beliefs.
Global "competitors" aren't throwing money at education? Yeah, right, and I suppose multinational corporations are outsourcing/offshoring high tech manufacturing operations to illiterate countries. This business practice alone blows your theory out of the water. I've already had this debate once before with another misguided ideologue. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll refer you to the CIA's website for the proof. Their analyst's numbers don't support your theory on education.
relengaMar 17, 2011
Private unions are a big reason that manufacturing has been moved overseas. It is also why Detroit is a ghost town, companies finally gave up and moved away. It is natural. You may be right that if working conditions, et all, drop that unions will make a comeback. Funny that they have not been dropping and private unions have not made a comeback yet, dont you think.
Paragraph 2 is meaningless. The state of economy has nothing to do with unions or lack there of.
Yes, global companies are outsourcing to illiterate countries. It has been happening for twenty years, where have you been? And yes those countries are climbing the economic ladder.
Eraptor, I have to expect more out of your arguments. you failed here.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
Relenga,
As much as you hate unions, you need to realize one key issue...without unions, there would be NO middle class and the U.S. consumer market would NOT exist. If you believe the elimination of unions/middle class is natural, I can't wait to see what conclusion you'll draw in its absence especially when the free trade house of cards collapses. The cracks have already formed, you're just in denial of them. The revolutions spreading across the Middle East are a major symptom of globalization, but it's just the start. There's much more to come and it's likely to hit in the U.S. if Conservatives succeed in destroying the middle class.
Since consumer spending accounts for 70% of economic activity (it's been irrefutably proven and so has the link between unions/middle class/consumers), I'll bet you haven't factored this impact on those overinflated corporate profit figures yet. I'm sure you'll argue that developing world consumers will supplant them, but the figures and median incomes/distribution of wealth in the developing world don't support your half-baked assumptions. Wages will rise, you say? If they do, then the basis for relocating to the developing world will evaporate since it's the PRIMARY driver. As for timing, the U.S. middle class will disappear well before developing world consumers are capable of making up for the lost revenue.
Where have I been while global companies were outsourcing to illiterate countries over the past 50 years? I was living in several of them (Latin America) for about 20 years of that time. I've seen the evolution of globalization since before the term was even coined. The problem lies in what it's become, not what it could be. Having said that, you failed to address the high tech industry which CAN'T function with illiterate employees.
anotherbrianMar 16, 2011
So this bill allows them to cancel existing union contracts? I seem to remember something about how bank manages' bonuses were part of their existing contracts and couldn't be canceled after we bailed their asses out.
nodespikeMar 16, 2011
shhh...you weren't suppose to note hippocracy.
anthopMar 17, 2011
hippocracy - noun - A form of government run by hippos.
unclefireMar 16, 2011
I'm all for reforming government, but if the article is accurate, they've just gone off the deep end. Since when can a state legislature decide it can give ONE bureaucrat the power to disolve a CITY gov. or school board that is ELECTED by the people? Friggin' insane.
Thinking of potential implications here... They legislate power to a city manager who can disolve a given entity (city, school board etc.). The contracts they have are pretty much null and void since the entity doesn't exist anymore.
crapolatimeMar 16, 2011
When G.W. Bush declared Martial Law in later 2001, little did people know what a freaking mess he would cause to the U.S. with all his future Republican henchmen striving to keep the Rich rich and keep the Poor as future Soylent Green.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
davidnivenMar 16, 2011
Only a matter of time before someone brought Bush into the discussion...
BDS is still alive and well here with the Digg liberals.
linuxpersonMar 16, 2011
Please provide a citation for this claim.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
You chose your name well.
ericschc1Mar 16, 2011
FTA: "The [appointed financial emergency] managers will also have the power to nullify elected councils and boards, or dissolve whole cities or school districts without a public vote. Gov. Rick Snyder will likely sign the bill soon."
Really?! What's the benefit in dissolving entire cities (besides maybe to beat down on left-leaning mayors and city councils)? f**k these assh**es!
jkhugginsMar 17, 2011
Dissolved cities or school districts can be merged with their neighbors, allowing financial savings due to economies of scale.
vectorbMar 17, 2011
This does not require dissolving of governments or going around the election process. merging districts happens all the time without needing to go to these measures.
jkhugginsMar 17, 2011
It *can* happen that way, sure. But it takes remarkable maturity and leadership to vote oneself out of existence. I don't see that all that often.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
theswashbucklerMar 16, 2011
Wow, Michigan legislators just voted against Democracy...
miklkitMar 16, 2011
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the Bible." Sinclair Lewis
linuxpersonMar 16, 2011
Fascism has been in America for a long time. Both majors parties are onboard with the corporatist agenda and there is absolutely no denying it.
kingnovaMar 16, 2011
Plutarchy stoked by feigned Nationalism
linuxpersonMar 16, 2011
Nationalism that both major statist parties play right into.
Look at how Republicans and Democrats routinely label each other as anti-American for evidence to back my claim up.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ect5150Mar 16, 2011
"A witty saying proves nothing."
--Voltaire
miklkitMar 17, 2011
This isn't wit. This has the ring of truth to it.
paranor01Mar 17, 2011
"But means so much to one it resonates with."
--Me
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
How weird is that ??
angusmMar 16, 2011
Finally, a phrase scarier than "Trust us. We're the government." and it is "Trust me. I'm an unaccountable private sector manager appointed to do the work of the government."
ano233Mar 16, 2011
Assuming this isn't media sensationalism it can't be legal. Simply designating that a "Financial Manager" can nullify elected officials, no mater how low on the totem pole they are, would strike at the very heart of democracy.
YachtRokrMar 16, 2011
Is this what Republicans consider "freedom" to be...imposing martial law? What in the hell are the Republicans doing to our Democracy? There's absolutely no need for their heavy-handed, authoritarian dictates.
jkhugginsMar 17, 2011
Before you get all self-righteous ... the emergency financial manager currently running the Detroit Public Schools was appointed by Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
eraptorMar 17, 2011
Granholm isn't the governor of Michigan and she would NEVER consider imposing a fascist piece of legislation as THIS Republican governor has done. The same goes for other Republican governors and their authoritarian political tactics.
jkhugginsMar 18, 2011
Is no-one reading the actual Politico article?
Emergency financial managers have existed in the state of Michigan for many, many years. Both Republican and Democratic governors have stepped into cities and school districts and "taken over" by appointing emergency financial managers. John Engler, a Republican governor, did it. Jennifer Granholm, a Democratic governor, did it.
The only thing that's "news" in this article is that Michigan is discussing expanding the considerable powers already held by financial managers.
This doesn't have to be about Republican versus Democrat.
eraptorMar 20, 2011
The issue you referred to as "news" is the bone of contention. While there may have been emergency financial managers before, those new powers and political overreach by Republicans is what has most of us angry.
I haven't made this a Republican vs Democrat issue, state Republicans have by engaging in vitriolic partisan attacks and abuse of power to the extent it's criminal. While the American people want change, we don't want political change that undermines and destroys our Democracy or standard of living/quality of life. Yet, that's precisely what the Republican party and legislators are pursuing in state governments across the country.
nihilMar 16, 2011
okay, this is certainly where I, a conservative, draw the line. There is no way appointed "managers" should have the right to dissolve elected bodies, cities or school districts!
unclefireMar 16, 2011
Thank you --
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
Good for you... You'll most likely get slammed for being honest...
nihilMar 17, 2011
I would hope that I wouldn't get slammed for this. Yes the country, states & towns are running some huge deficits and have been remiss in their fiduciary responsibilities when it comes to negotiating contracts and spending taxpayer money but the rule of law still should prevail in the country.
If cities have to go into receivership and their finances managed by an appointee, fine. But to give an appointee the ability to nullify elected bodies or even cities/school districts smacks of colonial governorships.
In the end the electorate has to bear some of the responsibility for the financial straits we find ourselves in as it is we who elect the politicians. Time for everyone to grow up and make some tough choices.
dalexandruzMar 16, 2011
Every State is in freaking debt. California has high taxes and yet they are still in debt they can't freaking balance their budget which is expected to be 26 billion this year, same with NYC high debt with high taxes. California, Illinois, NYC, Texas, are pretty much the only states that produce revenue the other states are moochers. I think we need to say f**k You to the Federal Government and bring back manufacturing to this country since all our service jobs are going overseas as well, what else is there to do if both manufacturing and service jobs are going bye bye, jerk off.
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
All politicians, both sides are to blame for this mess. They say they work for us..Now that's a hoot..
drich255Mar 16, 2011
Democrats and the Democrat Public Union Lobby are on the defensive. Love it!
drich255Mar 16, 2011
I am not against unions, but they should be private and they should be voluntary. I don't like the conflict of interest with Public Unions and Politicians. They basically are a lobby.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
What about Church and State..Just askin ?
drich255Mar 17, 2011
What about it?
miklkitMar 17, 2011
If you have to ask..........
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
Was that a tough question, or did I word it wrong ?
drich255Mar 18, 2011
Yes, miklkit and mtnmusicman, explain it to me. Connect the dots for me. I don't see how a vague Church and State question relates to my comment on Public Unions. Please enlighten us all.
donnyw1967Mar 16, 2011
If these managers have all this knowledge on how to fix these problems maybe they should just submit their ideas to the elected officials for their consideration.
Who am i kidding, this is just a power grab. Fu##ing Republican douchebags.
jkhugginsMar 17, 2011
Because we all know, of course, that politicians always act in the best interest of their constituents, and always recognize helpful advice when offered to them.
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
We're gonna get along real good...You'll find out that there will be times that saying "f**kin" will just flow...
u2canfailMar 16, 2011
I find this outrageous, but then I find much of what the GOP is doing today, NUTTS
scamper22Mar 16, 2011
you see all this is an unnecessary problem.
What was it that the market does well. It sets prices very well. It let's you know how much people are willing to pay for a service.
The government should directly pay very few people (police officers, judges..)
Why are teachers on the government payroll? The government should give us vouchers and we should take it to schools and it is up the school to decide how much to pay.
Maybe we need more highly paid teachers, maybe less paid teacher, but more educational assistants. who knows.
None of these should be an issue and there is no need for this big bruhaha. Vouchers are good and people can scale them up and down based on how much they choose to be taxed.
That is the price indicator people are willing to pay for education.
crymtyphonMar 16, 2011
What country has a private, 'market-based' education system,
that has achieved what the countries with public
education have achieved?
I google; but all the countries without a public school
system are slum 3rd world nations.
Really, the assertion of theory without example,
is always an education by itself.
scamper22Mar 17, 2011
many countries have school vouchers.
Just look north to Canada. British columba, Alberta have full school choice. Other countries include Chile...
They also have public systems... but there is choice which keeps it balanced and will be an out as these labor struggles happen.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
crymtyphonMar 17, 2011
School vouchers are public funds
paid to private schools to educate excess
children from the public schools.
And even those private schools are still part of
a national system. Even in British Columbia,
that hotbed of educational excellence.
Give us an example of a market-driven education
system that works.
- or tell us why we should abandon
what brought america to world prominence,
for your utopian theory.
.
healthartMar 16, 2011
I know there is a former Egyptian leader looking for a territory to oppress right now.
mtnmusicmanMar 17, 2011
Wow..
skews13Mar 17, 2011
ThinkProgress' lawyers have looked at it, and don't think it's Constitutional. Which i find interesting, because it's unconstitutional on it's face.
ford_prefect2ndMar 17, 2011
You people really need to start freaking out soon.
ch0wda_0Mar 17, 2011
Everyone* should have been freaking out already.
ford_prefect2ndMar 17, 2011
Everyone is a big word. I said you people because I am not Yankee. I still find the concept upsetting.
ch0wda_0Mar 18, 2011
Indeed. I used everyone because everyone should be. Yankee.. haha. Please. Doesn't matter if you are an "yankee" or not, everybody should be upset that government is taking too much precedence over all these issues. They made the financial mess, they have no right to take even more of YOUR or MY money to fix it. Or let the IRS control our money for that matter.
ford_prefect2ndMar 18, 2011
Governments have done this for years. This is the first time it was so obvious in your country. Thus, you should freak out. Please do so....NOW.
ch0wda_0Mar 18, 2011
Yes, I know it has been going on since before any of us were born. You didn't say you weren't from the US. Yankee usually refers to someone from the northern United States which made me believe you were from a different area in the US.
190273Mar 17, 2011
not even remotely legal--MI needs to recall these fascists
sabz5150Mar 17, 2011
Good. Let these Republicans run their respective states into the ground. Let them destroy everything that has been built over the past century.
Then, when the people beg for help... refuse. Why do you need help? This is what you voted for!
paultripMar 17, 2011
Is Snyder a dictator?
aroersMar 17, 2011
thumbs down michigan
rixar13Mar 17, 2011
"Michigan's legislature has passed a bill declaring "financial martial law,"
Class War-fare? My lunch is packed...!
stedford12Mar 17, 2011
Just another measure to intimidate the public.
stedford12Mar 17, 2011
Just another measure to intimidate the public.
brianallenusMar 18, 2011
OK the GOP attacking the Unions because they say they hurt the public good sort of speak? So shouldn't that mean that the National Political Parties or "committees" (especially Republican) be barred also? Don't they raise money for (as union does), aid candidates (as a union aids workers), Negotiates for, and I would dare say does much more damage to a state of the country as a whole than any union could.
sebeling3Mar 21, 2011
Ugg!!! This is getting scary.
sebeling3Mar 21, 2011
Ugg!!! This is getting scary.
cherryhealeyMar 30, 2011
The government needs to deal with the deficit in a different way. I am a new MI resident and I hope things don't continue this way. I just rented an apartment fromhttp://realestate/mlive.com/michigan/wayne-county/detroit/for-rent