The " Rally for Hoosiers" is hoping for 25,000 people to descend on the capitol. Like their protests inside the Statehouse for the past few weeks, many say they will continue to demand union rights and protection for the middle class.
[. . .]
With street construction, and tens of thousands of visitors in town for the Big Ten tournament, some of the labor unions are hoping for downtown gridlock. That's an actual goal. They want supporters filling up downtown parking garages.
In a flier they stated "this will help us jam things up downtown. If we can take up as many parking spaces as possible people will complain. This will impact businesses, and the Chamber causing them to tell their friends in the General Assembly to do whatever it takes to keep these people from tying up the town like this."
Are these people delusional? Somebody actually thinks causing a massive traffic jam and irritating thousands of Big Ten basketball fans is going to win them support? Businesses are going to complain to the Chamber, which will then beg legislators to make the
Comments
You have to understand that their mindset is that of petulant children. If they don't get what they perceive is rightly theirs (that would be everybody elses money ultimately) they will hold their collective breath, scream, rant, rave, cry and generally disrupt anything and everything around them exactly like a tantrum throwing child.
It's their money as well; did you forget, they are taxpayers as well? It isn't just "everybody else's money."
AJ
Veterans from WWI camped at Anacostia Flats to demand payment of their bonuses - and they got them. In the 1960s, the campout at Resurrection City brought action from Congress, too.
The reason why DC is excluded from the Posse Comitatus Act is that soldiers from the revolution gathered to demand monies that were more than two years overdue.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it - but in this case, perhaps it's those who HAVE learned from history that are repeating it. The right to peacefully assemble and demand redress of grievances is specifically guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Hey, let's not forget what Hoover did when the vets marched on D.C. wanting their bonuses. Those damn protesters.
AJ
Tim got it right, ... "they will hold their collective breath, scream, rant, rave, cry and generally disrupt anything and everything around them exactly like a tantrum throwing child."
Union rights are one thing, although I personally firmly believe the time and reason for unions has long since come and gone - but unions in the public sector, that's something we should have done away with long ago. It's one thing to bargain for more money and more benefits with a private employer, but quite another to do it with taxpayer money.
So Leo, Larry and Tim will now cheerfully go on record that they fully support disbanding the police unions as well, right?
But Larry, those public sector employees who shouldn't be bargaining for more money and benefits with "taxpayer money," aren't they taxpayers bargaining with their hard earned tax dollars and having a say in how it's spent?
AJ
"Andrew J. Says:
March 11th, 2011 at 1:42 am
But Larry, those public sector employees who shouldn
"The gravy train is going to end, we can
Michaelk42, I'm not in favor of ANY public employee unions and never said I was, try bit*hing at those that actually disagree with ya ok? sheesh...
We r working on a story right now about fact vs. fiction of govt employees. Studies show while they tend ro get better bennies than private sector it doesnt make up for the lower pay they earn compared to the private sector for comparable jobs. Turn your ire against private employers who have pulled back and gutted pensions, health benefits .shouldnt u b screaming to improve the living standards of all insteas of screaming that quality of life should be lessened? Rising tides lift all shipsaj
Funny, the only group I ever really see you guys complaining about by name is the teachers.
Michaelk42, That may have something to do with the fact the articles/posts we have commented on have been about teachers, ya think?
If Leo writes a piece on the F.O.P. my guess is we'd address that.
We commonly refer to that as "staying on subject", try it sometime.
Man, you must hate it when people point out the natural extension of what you're espousing. XD
If Leo had the word "teachers" in this post at all, you might have something like a point.
But as usual, you don't. :D
Michael, this whole issue began and remains (here and wisconsin) primarily as a teachers issue, and they (the teachers union) have been at the fore since day one, hence my focus and remarks reference them most often. I apologize for not listing all the public employees, I guess in order to avoid giving you an opening to "trip me up" or find some inconsistency in my opinion, I should have made it perfectly clear (again) that my objection is to all public employee unions.
I regret responding to your snark so inadequately.
AJ, Make sure you send us a link when you finish that story.
Then again, you probably won't need to, we'll be able to read it on the front page of The New York Times and see it on every major news outlet since you are going to disprove every other study out there.
This should be Pulitzer material, once and for dispelling the myth about public employee unions!
By the way, who do you think should pay for the pensions of public employees?
Let's see. Taxpayers pay for public projects, like road building, for example. The cost of that construction includes paying for concrete, cement mixers, cranes and the public sector workers, salaries and benefits, who buy the right of way, design the project and help see it through. Its part of the cost of public projects/public works. My taxes pay for someone to educate a child; should I just pay for the textbooks the teacher uses or the salary and benefits that civilized western society says is part and parcel of our quality of life.
If you buy a car, don't you think part of the cost are the salaries and benefits, pension and health plans included, factored into what you pay? It's the cost of doing business.
I'll flip it; you are so pissed off about paying pensions for public employees. How about raising their salaries and then having them pay their own? Or better yet, scream at corporations to stop chizeling us out of benefits.
Overpaid? How often here we write a story about someone being hired or leaving local government. We are trying to hire a school superintendent in one of the largest school districts in Florida. They supervise 10s of 1,000s of students and run a budget in the hundreds of millions. They want to pay $160,000 for that job. What do you think a CEO of a comparable company handling so many workers and having so much money to oversee would fetch? And do you think that CEO, or even second in command, would be told there are no benefits or we really dont' want to pay for them?
Get real.
AJ
LOL, you keep telling yourself it's primarily a "teachers" issue. The cops in WI already know better than that (scroll down)
http://michaelk42.tumblr.com/post/3756439043/akagoldfish-vruz-this-is-the-scene-inside
Hey Tim, maybe instead of whining about the people that got together and got a decent/livable deal from their employers, maybe you should be figuring out why you're so willing to let yourself be screwed over?
Our resident socialist queries: "Hey Tim, maybe instead of whining about the people that got together and got a decent/livable deal from their employers, maybe you should be figuring out why you
"Union rights are one thing, although I personally firmly believe the time and reason for unions has long since come and gone - but unions in the public sector, that
Harl notes "Unions don
"1. The fact that I have to pay for it. I shouldn
Michael, to answer your questions:
"As Delos says, bitch about the people agreeing to the terms while you
Self employed means a part of your retirement plan includes a 401k?
And now you're just lying. Walker stated that he had no intention of negotiating. The Democrats left *because* of that refusal to negotiate.
Are you suggesting that denying quorum is illegal in Wisconsin? Care to back that up, or is that another lie?
BTW: I'm a leech, am I? Fuck you, Tim Zank. You don't know me. If you've got nothing better than lies and personal attacks, maybe you should shut up before you make yourself look worse.
I'm not self employed; I have worked for large corporations going on 32 years. They set up pensions at one time which was part of my income package; the government said add to it by starting a 401k as well, which I have; I contribute to Social Security. I, and millions of others who do likewise, are not leeches.
It's a dark, bitter world you live in Tim.
Andrew
*SIGH*
I hate to point out the obvious but, In r/e Michaelk42's reponses, I would submit they prove beyond any doubt that no further evidence is required to fundamentally restructure the way our children are educated. Be that as it may, on to "negotiations".....
When the session ends, a vote is taken. That means negotiations are over, we are going to vote. The dems ran away and wanted a "do-over". If you run the state legislatures allowing "do-overs" and "oops, I changed my mind" for every bill, there is no need for 2 parties, just yours. I find that un-American. Of course dems like the idea right now, but they wouldn't if they were the majority and the republicans did it. I chalk that up to most dems having no conscience.
As for Wisconsin law, I'm not a lawyer, but I know if the results of my actions mean if I return to my home state the State Troopers can pick me up and force me to the Statehouse to vote, I'd at least lean towards "illegal". I know it's not fair.
As for "leech", from Merriam-Webster " : a hanger-on who seeks advantage or gain"
In my opinion, if one lives off of someone elses money, not in a charitable sense but by forced transfer (i.e. your retirement check coming from my pocket) via the federal government, that is "leeching". Call it what you want.
What do you call it? I guess a nicer name is "redistribution" or "confiscation" but it still means you're sucking off of other peoples money.
What a nutty answer. If that's the case, we are all leaches because we all pay into Social Security, medicare and medicaid funding, and for all the services the feds provide which we all, to a greater or lesser extent benefit from. Hell, guess I'm leaching off myself because I'm paying taxes by "forced transfer" for the exact same things I am benefiting from. Guess I'm sucking off other people's money and also sucking off my money as well.
And guess any and all of us who have 401k plans for retirement are leaches as well.
AJ
And so you open up with more personal insults. Classy, Tim Zank.
In other words, you don't know that what the WI Democrats have done is illegal, and you're talking out of your ass.
In fact, the same situation here in Indiana with quorum-denial, is in fact explicitly legal. And has been used by the Republicans as well as the Democrats in the past.
You might want to do some research of your own on these matters instead of simply parroting the lines fed to you.
Now let me get this straight: you really think that someone who works for the government has no right to have employer contributions to their retirement? Are you just mad that you haven't managed as good a deal? (Hint: you do not own your own business. You essentially work for RE/Max. When you're no longer associated with that corporation, let us know.) They worked for the people, they are the employers; it's not your money anymore.
Deal with it.
Now tell me Zank, how am I a leech, exactly? You still haven't addressed that particular insult.
Andrew J wrote: "Self employed means a part of your retirement plan includes a 401k?"
No matter who you ask, the answer to that would always be "no". A 401(k) is a salary-reduction plan, and a person cannot pay himself a salary, so only employees can have 401(k) plans. Self-employed people have other plans, such as a Keogh plan.
Real estate agents are not employees. It's not even a judgment call. That's the law.