Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The biggest story out of Wisconsin

Posted 2 years ago on June 9, 2012, 1:02 p.m. EST by myows (133)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

should be that 3 individual donors gave more to Scott Walker than Barret got in total donations to his campaign! Think about this for a minute. This should concern everybody regardless of your political idealogy. This time the billionaire with the unlimited resources may be on your side of the issue but next time he may not be.

128 Comments

128 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

But in the end it was citizens of Wisconsin that pulled the lever in the voting booth.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

14 billionaires helped pull those levers in Wisconsin. When people from out of state use their power to affect an election, Democracy has ceased to exist.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2012/06/05/gov-scott-walkers-big-money-backers-include-13-out-of-state-billionaires/

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Are you saying that the people of Wisconsin are sheep or that people in general are sheep?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

people are willing to believe people are sheep

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

What matters is what something is, not what it is called. Calling someone a sheep does not make them a sheep and a rose by any other name is still a rose.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Too many people worldwide are sheep. That is why tyranny prevails. It takes a relatively small percentage to stand on two legs to overthrow the wolves though. Occupy has shown who the wolves are, now they need to show the people how to stand up.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So you believe that people are sheep and you want the sheep to follow you instead of someone else because you know what is best for them.

I get it now.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I want people to think for themselves, to stand up to tyranny where ever it exists. On the right, on the left, in the center. Even if I don't agree with their choice, at least they are the ones who have made it.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

OK that I can agree with.

It is a shame that more people care who the next American Idol winner is than who their next representative in congress is.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If our representatives started singing a new song, maybe the people would pay attention.

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

ow and the people who back them ( soros , trumka and his union money) are the wolves.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

There are wolves of all political persuasions, conservative as well as liberal. Even some within Occupy. I abhor them all.

[-] 0 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

good post

[+] -4 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

money from out of state went to barrett. the reason walker won is because he saved wisconsin.the state was in the red, under walker , wisconson now has a surplus.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

66% out of state money went to Walker, 25% to Barrett. All of the out of state contributors trampled on Democracy. Wisconsin may have a surplus but at the expense of freedom. By allowing outside influence, the people of that state lost the ability to freely decide among themselves what course they should take.

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the did not trample on democracry as they did nothing illegal. outside money went to barrett from various teacher unions around the country .

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Democracy means rule by the people. When people from outside that Democracy made up of Wisconsin voters gains influence, Democracy does not exist.

If you carried your logic further, to a national election where people from different countries contributed money to our Presidential campaigns, would you consider that Democracy?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Following that line of logic, it could be argued that transnational corporations (which are legally declared people) already do contribute money to presidential campaigns. I would consider that corporatism.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Multinational corporations are definitely a gray area. The simple solution would be to limit all people, real and corporate, from influencing elections with more than a couple hundred dollars worth of ads or other forms of speech. Everyone would keep the right of free speech intact as well as limit free speech that is unfairly amplified by money.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

A level playing field and equal opportunity. Sounds about right to me.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Whew for a minute - looking at the shortened line on the recent comment board.

I was afraid you were gonna say - Democracy means never having to say your sorry. But that would be just - wrong.

That would clearly be a corporatist saying!!!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Democracy is a kind of " Love Story". Cherishing another persons right to express themselves as much as your own.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

OK - yeah - I can see that - a selfless love - sure.

I was more going with the I do not care so I won't say I am sorry - corporate attitude - but my mistake was quoting from love story. Different meaning all together. Problem with trying to be humorous - it can backfire so easily.

My Bad.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

plenty of money from foreign sources given to the obamam campaign

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Foreign money in elections is prohibited. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

go to http://theulstermanreport.com/ take the time and read the interviews with the WHI ( white house insider). over 300 mil came from outside sources.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Good. They can use that to finance more unemployment benefits when government employees get fired with more austerity cuts.

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

walker has taken wisconsin from being in the red to a budget surplus.

[-] -2 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

good post

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

thank you, what the union heads dont like about walker is that he took away mandatory union dues payroll deductions. without that , membership dropped fom over 60,000 to under 30, 000. thats what the unions leaders care about , the money that they used to line their pockets and the power that came from the use of that money. it went to back democrat candidates who in turn backed the unions. around and around it goes.

[-] -2 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

Hope they keep on starving the union bosses like Trumka. Who knows, maybe someday we will see him and he will be saying "Welcome to Walmart"

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

gerard too.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Based on whatever information was presented to them through various media advertisements paid for by billionaires. The more money the more misinformation can be presented.

Present enough misinformation that hasn't been offset by the other side and you create doubt in a voters mind. Much like doubt in a jury presented by a defense lawyer. In court, he who can afford the best legal team wins also.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

So are you saying the people of Wisconsin are sheep or people in general are sheep?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thats like saying that a jury behaves like sheep, no... that's not what I'm saying. Take the topic AGW for instance. The science has been researched for over 100 years. The theory of AGW, (the scientific definition of theory) has been in place and well defined for decades. It is as sound and well developed as the theory of Evolution.

Yet with a small budget, the Heartland Institute waged a misinformation campaign that has completely turned public opinion around on the subject.

Most working people are not in a position to fact check everything that is stated, be it in politics or science. Many don't have the time, many don'e have the resources... often experts from different sides of the debate are offered up as authoritative proof. Who do you trust?

The scientific community did not respond back with a media campaign of its own to rebuke the misinformation. They felt that the facts would stand on their own. As a result of the activity of the blogosphere, copying and pasting over and over again, viral blogs of misinformation, the dialogue was swayed to the denialist side. There were other factors as well, Climatologists shooting themselves in the foot didn't help, but the media war won public opinion.

If mass media marketing did not work, there would be no need for Madison Avenue, nor would corporations spend billions annually to sway public opinion to buy their products.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Ah,,,

So you are saying people in general are ignorant, uneducated, easily mislead, and not very resourceful.

I would say that is kind of like sheep.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Because a person can be misled does not make it right to do so. But you don't care about injustice, do you? Dealing fair and square with other people must not be in your vocabulary. Defending the right to prey on vulnerable people seems to be more your speed.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I did not say it is right to do so. I only asked if geo believed people are sheep.

It appears that I have more faith in humans then geo does or I guess than you do. I don't think people are sheep. Especially the ones that take time out to vote.

[-] -1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I don't really care what kind of animals you compare people to. It is irrelevant to the point being made. Keep on defending billionaires who have a grossly distorted amount of power compared to the average citizen, but you show your true colors - a Koch brother from another mother.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I don't think people are animals. I have found People are influenced by their wallet. I don't think they are much influenced by TV commercials.

The truth of the matter on Walker in WI is:

72 percent favor asking public sector workers to increase their pension contributions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their salaries.

71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent of their own healthcare premiums instead of the previous 6 percent. Police and firefighters were exempted from the pension and healthcare adjustments but 57 percent of taxpayers say they should not have been.

65 percent say public sector workers receive better pension and health care benefits than private sector workers.

When asked what state and local officials should do if pensions and health benefits are underfunded, 74 percent favor requiring government employees to pay more for their own healthcare and retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, 75 percent oppose cutting funding for programs like education and 74 percent oppose raising taxes to help fund government worker benefits.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

who's doing these numbers?

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

If people are not much influenced by TV commercials, why would billionaires spend so much money on them? C'mon Joe, be fair, you know that does not pass the smell test.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I for the people of WI, their wallets are the biggest influence. They are paying on average 25% for their benefits and the public sector unions are complaining about 12%. I would be pissed too.

I think the "billionaires" are wasting their money these days. I don't think that people watch many of those TV commercials. Most people have DVRs and skip the commercials. I have not watched many commercials for a long time.

[-] -1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Lol. Billionaires ! What idiots ! Throwing away all their money like that.

Thump ! That was the sound of me falling out of my chair.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They are not throwing it away but they are certainly not getting the bang for the buck they used to.

It will be even harder with the up coming generation that does not watch TV at all.

[-] 0 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

The reason for your numbers is because people believe that there is not enough money for the union members to receive the amounts they get. What if the truth was that there is enough money but it's being plundered by cheaters that are getting away with it?

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I believe the reason is that people are paying on average 28% of their benefit cost while the WI public sector union employees are complaining about paying 12%.

They also know that their property taxes have gone up to pay for the public sector union employees.

[-] 2 points by alterorabolish1 (569) 2 years ago

We all wish that our benefit cost were only 12% instead of 28%. Is that possible? Not if we take the word of our elected officials, who tell us there isn't enough money. However, if our economy is being plundered by a small number of people, causing inability of middle class people to pay taxes, we're told the money just isn't there. Instead, the rich continue to get richer, while the middle class net worth has dropped 40% since 2007.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am not a public sector worker so the elected officials have nothing to say about my contribution to benefits I pay 28% like most everyone else in the private sector.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Sheep are stupid. You can't cure stupid. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. That can be fixed through education. People aren't sheep. As I stated earlier most people are too busy trying to make ends meet and don't have the time to research deeply. Trying to find the truth in politics can be a long and convoluted journey.

If mass media marketing did not work, there would be no need for Madison Avenue, nor would corporations spend billions annually to sway public opinion to buy their products.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I have found People are influenced by their wallet.

The truth of the matter on Walker in WI is:

72 percent favor asking public sector workers to increase their pension contributions from less than 1 percent to 6 percent of their salaries.

71 percent favor making government employees pay 12 percent of their own healthcare premiums instead of the previous 6 percent.

Police and firefighters were exempted from the pension and healthcare adjustments but 57 percent of taxpayers say they should not have been.

65 percent say public sector workers receive better pension and health care benefits than private sector workers.

When asked what state and local officials should do if pensions and health benefits are underfunded, 74 percent favor requiring government employees to pay more for their own healthcare and retirement benefits. In sharp contrast, 75 percent oppose cutting funding for programs like education and 74 percent oppose raising taxes to help fund government worker benefits.

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

let us not forget that Walker gets a nice healthcare package from Guess who? As does all of congress.Also remember that when he is done screwing people in his political life he will be taken care of by his benafactors.Not that he is alone in this chrade.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I have no problem with the benefits package as long as he is paying into it like everyone else.

As for pensions, I would prefer a move to a 401k system like everyone I know in the private sector. It is a better deal for everyone involved and there is no fund to raid.

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

The only reason the private sector has 401 ks for the most part is due to the absence of a defined pension system.This became almost extinct with the decline of private sector unions.In tyhe long run I think the forty hour week will also become a thing of the past.America is already a second rate country with exception to its military,It could be argued because of it.The young people see there is no longer a future in a country run by the wealthy and are beginning to rebel.As time goes on and the attacks continue the repression will only increase.America is in steady decline and that is a fact.Blame your leaders it is not some 50k a year school teacher etc.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I prefer a 401k system because I know the money is mine and I can invest it as I like. I can keep it in savings of invest it in a mutual fund. The choice is mine and there is no fund to raid.

[-] 0 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

401k is good. Defined benifit is also good.A combination of both is ideal.But that is out of the question for most Americans.And let's face it our social security is under attack.Wall st and there politicians have had there eye on our money for a long time.Thank God old Georgie Did not get his way when he proposed to hand it over to the bankers.

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

401k with matching is best. I want to own and control my money.

I wish I could have been able to invest all the money that was taken from me and put into social security. I would love to have opted out of that forced retirement program. I would be a millionaire several times over and retired by now.

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

IM not ok with a lot of things the goverment does with money.Such as huge military. Money out of my pocket and to the corporations.Money for endless subsidies.Money for Bail outs with no jail time for financial crimes.We both know the list is endless.If you want to opt out of social security do like the rich renounce your citizenship and move over seas.If you do not like the idea that people are having rich and full lives after retierment perhaps you can run for office. Many corporate backers will support you because as you know they will do anything to get out of sharing with there employees.So life is tough you have to pay social security.What are your other beefs?

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You are preaching to the choir.

That is why I voted for RonPaul last week. Of course it was to no avail because he is to radical for the establishment. Imagine wanting to cut militarily spending in half. Is he crazy? Imagine wanting to end bailouts and crony capitalism. What is wrong with this man? Imagine wanting to eliminate Social Security. How mean can he be?

While I am not equipped to run I can certainly vote my conscious.

[-] 2 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Remember Joe social security is a contarct we make with each other.If you are unable to earn it insures that we do not eat cat food.You work for your self you have to pay 6% If employed 3% employer has to match.3% of your pay.It is good for all people to live with dignity not just those who can afford it.I do belive it was implemented to save capatalism from itself.People will die for there country.No one will starve for it.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Social security was supposed to be a safety net. It morphed into a retirement program so we can play golf and collect. When it was created the average life span was 59.7 and currently 79.2. Add to that 75% choose early retirement at 62.

I am all for keeping people in trouble from starving. We have welfare, food stamps, unemployment, social services, and other programs for that. I have no problem with capable people being on welfare for some period of time (not indefinitely). I am not OK with the government taking my money,not investing it for me and giving it back to me when I am 65.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I agree I voted for Ralf Nader twice.I have always thougt Dr.Paul a true statesman.Along with Bernie Sandes.Both different.But both honest conviction.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I wish I had all the money I spent in a bar.I would be able to join your club.If our foresight was as good as our hindsight we would all be rich today.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I don't go to the bar much.

My foresight is pretty good. I have been maxing my 401k for 25 years combined they are over 7 figures. If I could have put the social security money in I would be one of those nasty 1 percent folks. I would probably be pretty charitable though.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I wrote in NO WAR on my election ballet

yet it was reported Obama got 100% of the primary vote

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I voted for RonPaul in the primary. I had to register Republican to do it which felt dirty but it was worth it. I know he does not have a chance but I wanted to push the button for Dr. Paul.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 2 years ago

Amen.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The biggest story wasn't the money. It was that 40% of union members voted for Walker? Wouldn't you have assumed that 90% would have voted against him? Can you believe that any amount of propaganda would have gotten union members to vote against their interests? Turns out they are no smarter that the Tea Party.

Next thing you will tell me is that 98%% of Catholic women have used contraceptives and half of them are voting Republican.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (24970) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well in this case - despite Walkers motives and intentions - a lot of the union workers agreed that the union was fucked-up. But Walker does not care about that or proper negotiation he is out to bust labor - pure and simple - and the teachers union for one helped him out in the eyes of the public. Wisconsin has more learning experiences ahead of them.

[-] 1 points by activist33 (1) 2 years ago

Please read "Politics for the 99%" in The Nation magazine. It is not ok to let Repubs keep the House and take the Senate and White House.The Ryan budget plan is not ok,nor is eliminatiing Planned Parenthood,cutting food stamps,raising interest rates on tuition,further privitizing public spaces,schools ets. High Repub turnout allowed Scott Walker to get elected and survive the recall and to let them take the House and more seats in the Senate. OWS young adults and aging "progressives are willing to throw their fellow Americans,the 99% to the lions to demonstrate their moral superiority. Also,Bill Maher has some good things to say,or are u concerned re getting "co-opted"by him or The Nation if u listen to what they have to say? I was once a know-it-all young adult so I know what it's like.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

"I was once a know-it-all"

So, what changed? You became a know-less?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

The biggest story out of Wisconsin is Donald Driver winning Dancing with the Stars.

[-] 1 points by myows (133) 2 years ago

You people saying that the unions are thugs and the corporations are good please explain this to me. I work for Verizon,the company is prosperous.@ CEO's split 49 million $$ in compensation last year. They outsource American jobs all over the place and are currently trying to take away our pensions, healthcare and other major benefits. The corporation, if allowed to do what it want's, does not have America's or it's employees best interests at heart. And these are the kind of people that can give million dollar donations to candidates. They have their foot in the door now and will fix the rules so that soon we are all minimum wage/no benefit workers. We will have no recourse either because all the pols are bought and paid for by these people.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

What is the Verizon CEO's job? To employ you, or to make money for Verizon shareholders?

When he makes money for them they pay him big cake.

[-] 2 points by myows (133) 2 years ago

SO let's say all CEO's can raise their stocks price 5 dollars (and make themselves multi millionaires in the process) by outsourcing every job possible and raiding the pension fund money and taking away all worker benefits. The CEO is happy, shareholders that have many thousands of shares will be happy, the average American middle class person ---extinct.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

The question remains.

What is the Verizon CEO's job?

His job is to make money for Verizon. If you get a job in the process that is incidental.

What is the take-away from this?

Don't rely on anybody for your livelihood.

[-] 1 points by BetsyRoss2 (125) 2 years ago

"Don't rely on anybody for your livelihood."

I'd go hunting for my food, but Walker's deer czar is going to make it too costly to buy a hunting license, and I won;t have any public land to hunt on.

[-] 1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Ever think of starting your own business?

You will not be completely independent, but you will have much more control.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

I know a fair number of people in Wisconsin, and I can tell you that in their cases, as in many or most others, the money had nothing to do with it -- the fatal blow was dealt by actuarial mathematics. The simple fact is that public pensions and benefits are rapidly outstripping the ability of governments to pay for them, and the people are getting tired of tax increases whilst services are being cut to pay for these benefits.

You'd better get used to more of this. It's a pretty well-known and admitted fact that for a long time, politicians and public employee unions were way too cozy with the you-vote-for-me-and-I'll take-care-of-you routine, and took care of each other far too well at the expense of the public fisc. That notable conservative Willie Brown, democratic speaker of the California house candidly admitted this in an interview last year.

Many public pension funds are nearing bankruptcy (one, American Samoa, is already in bankruptcy proceedings), and in recent years three cities or towns (Prichard AL, Fall River RI and Stockton CA) have had to declare bankruptcy due to their cavalier granting of remarkably generous benefits they could not possible afford to pay for over time. Another noted Conservative, Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel, recently noted that if Chicago's equally corrupt and bankrupt pension scheme weren't reduced, 1) it will eventually eat up 50% of the city's entire revenues and 2) taxes will reach a point that both businesses and people will be driven from the city as a result and the city will start to decay.

Within the last week, voters in two solidly liberal cities, San Diego CA and San Jose CA have overwhelmingly approved reductions in public employee benefits for the same reason -- the benefits were bleeding the cities white, and taxes in all of these places including Wisconsin are already very high as it is. I know people in both of these cities also (all staunch liberals and leftists), and it's the same as Wisconsin -- they do the math and realize that the public employee unions have been wrapping themselves in the flag and then screwing everybody else, and now that they're getting some pushback they're wrapping themselves in the flag again and pretending like we're all in this together, and completely ignoring the fact the fact that we most certainly weren't all in it together -- at least not in their minds -- when they got together in a smoke-filled room with some fat politician and gave the taxpayers a good screwing.

The people in these places aren't acting like sheep. To the contrary, they've stopped being sheep. That's what all the whining is about.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Aren't acting like sheep? The Union shearers were cutting a little too much off, but these new corporate ones have shorn us so deeply they have cut into the muscle!

The sheep are bah bahing about the wrong shearers. The corporate ones don't want wool, they want our flesh!

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

A little to much off? Bankrupting the city is a little too much? What's a lot?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The unions take a fraction of what the corporations take.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Most certainly, corporations didn't bankrupt Stockton or Fall River, and they aren't draining the finances of San Diego or San Jose. Public employee benefits are the cause in all these cases. An ipsi dixit painting corporations as bad guys doesn't change that.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Corporations mostly don't take anything from cities. To the contrary, in every city, businesses are major contributors to tax revenues. That's why cities so often fall all over themselves trying to attract some major company to come open up shop there. The company not only provides a lot of jobs, but also many different streams of tax revenue, from sales taxes on products, to employment taxes to business profit taxes, to real estate taxes, etc., etc., etc. When businesses leave, cities die. Look at Detroit or Youngstown for the results.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A corporations tax revenues come from the people who buy their products. Since the revenue might come from a wide cross section of the country, it tends to enrich cities at the expense of rural areas.

All taxes, sales, corporate, property, Etc. are ultimately paid by the end users of those products and services. They can be beneficial to the taxpayers by providing worthwhile services or just the opposite when they are wasted on non productive projects.

Corporations are beneficial when they provide a product at a fair price. They can be harmful when they provide a product at an unfair price. I don't think I would have a hard time convincing you how many companies charge outrageous prices for replacement parts for items that should not have failed in such a short time. When all of the companies are equally unreliable what choice do you have? The mangers all seem to have come from the same business schools where ethics is an unknown subject.

[-] 0 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

And how, pray tell does any of this affect public employee pensions and benefits? Throughout this thread your whole point has been to attempt to deflect the whole issue away from unions and their collusion with crooked politicians and somehow cast businesses as the bad guys in all of this. So tell me how they manage it all.

Do corporations somehow use this massive power and concentration of wealth to somehow improperly induce public employee unions to negotiate for benefits that will drive a city into bankruptcy? Are corporations bribing politicians in order to get them to hand out these insane benefits to unionized employees? I'm just not understanding your proposed connection. Explain it to me.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The corrupt part of unions I abhor just as much as the corrupt part of corporations. The corrupt part of government I abhor even more because there is a sacred trust that has been broken.

The only difference between the first two is size. The larger the wolf, the greater it's appetite. The corruption between unions and government didn't help bring about the near financial collapse, the corruption between government and corporations did.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

The corruption between unions and politicians is what brought about the collapse of Stockton and Fall River, and is about to bring on the collapse of many other public entities. Corporations had nothing whatever to do with it.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Compared to to a nations economic collapse, a cities is relatively minor.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

Tell that to the people in Stockton or Fall River.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If the U.S. economy collapses, the people in Stockton and Fall River will think of their local collapse as a bee sting in comparison.

[-] -1 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

The US economy is not collapsing due to corrupt corporations. No corporation told the government or the people to load up on debt. Nobody told Greece to keep spending. Those were action by various entities. The real issue is that money was liquid and cheap and this forced borrowing. The issue of the price of money is very old and we still don't know how to price it correctly. Bad corporations and behaviour will always happen.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The US economy did collapse due to corrupt corporations. Banks are corporations. You can't have collapse without the reckless amounts of debt that they approved. Debt is the shakiness inherent in any structure. The more debt, the greater the chance of collapse. The bankers saw the structure falling on them, but instead they pushed it toward innocent people.

[-] -1 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Debt was cheap that's why so many people were able to borrow and run up their credit cards. The bankers did what they are suppose to do. They don't report to a higher governmental authority that says they have to police people's behaviour. If we are going down that road then there is a lot more we can do to help people like eliminate cigarettes, sugar, video games, and the internet.

[-] -1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

The U.S. economy isn't in danger of collapsing any time soon. Stockton and Fall River already have.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Were there any people shouting a warning before Stockton fell? I bet they were ignored. What did you do?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

There is another difference.

A corp must compete in the free market. If they do a lousey job their competitors cull them.

Public employee trade unions have a monopoly. The only way to get rid of them is to privatize the particular Gov service (this has worked in a lot of cities).

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In a free market the more corrupt and predatory corporation has an advantage over one that plays by the rules. They grow faster and devour their competition. Once they have reached a certain size, they become difficult to regulate and monopolize entire segments of industry.

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

If the corp breaks a law arrest, try, convict and send the criminals to jail.

When a corp gets too big and loses their edge smaller more agile corps eat their lunch. Happens constantly.

You know there are plenty of Gov rules and regs limiting corporate monopolies; and I favor additional laws if needed.

That said, there is no control on Gov sector services. They just grow in size and cost, but degrade in quality and service. There is no equivalent competitive force to drive excellence that exists in the private sector.

Failing public schools are a sad example. We are 3rd in the world in cost per student and 27 in math and science. We stink.

How do you fix this problem? Privatize.

My town used to have the worst trash pick-up service you can imagine. It was expensive, they frequently did not show up and when they did rubbish and crushed trash cans lined the streets in the wake of their service.

8 years ago the city fired the union workers and hired a private hauler. The cost went down, the people are actually nice to us, they put the cans up on the sidewalk after they are emptied, and I swear that if I cut up an automobile and put it out front they would figure a way to get it in that truck. The workers make more than the union guys did (mainly because three of them do the work of six union guys). And this is all because unlike the union guys they know that if they do a lousy job the city just fires them and finds a better service.

Surely our kids are more important than collecting trash. Privatize.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In the near collapse of our enormous financial system, one that might have dragged much of the rest of the world down with it, not a single person was tried for any crime. The sheer amount of fraud was horrendous. But hundreds of people camping in protest of that fraud are arrested instead?

Occupy is the only group I know of that is actively exposing the diseased underbelly of this corporate government beast and is the reason why I support them. I don't agree with all of their tactics, but at least they are willing to stand up against injustice, while those who do nothing enable injustice to increase.

True, there is much corruption in local and state governments, unions, education, utilities. Our only difference seems to be how we view the threat. I focus on a national level, you on a local level. We can't both focus on all corruption everywhere at the same time. That is a fault within Occupy as well.

I support your battle against local injustice and hope you will support our battle against national injustice.

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Don't you think that the rest of American is not as angry about this as OWS? The 2010 congress got fired over this.

You nailed it with the "corporate-government beast" comment. Obama declined prosecution because the corps involved were operating legally.

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-ferguson/how-wall-street-became-a-_b_1536475.html)

Gov is way too involved with these businesses. That's why they had to be bailed out. Most of the home mortgages involved were either secured or pushed by the Gov. And the Gov can do a lot more damage than the corps because they have unlimited power.

Make you self a table with two columns. At the top of the first column write the name of the most diabolical and corrupt corp you can think of. Then at the top of the second column write the word Government.

Now under each title write all of the ways that each entity affects your life, every day. After you list ten things I think that you will see which is the bigger problem.

If you remain unconvinced consider the per capita income of two bordering nations. Both are democracies, have large oil and other mineral deposits, and were colonized at about the same time, but one is ranked as having more than twice the Gov corruption . One has a GDP per capita of $ 48,400 the other $ 14,600. The difference is the government. Can you guess the two countries?

http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2011/results/

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We continually fire congress, but replace them with politicians hatched from the same corrupt party incubators that produced their predecessors. Einsteins famous quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result certainly applies here.

The line between government and big business has become blurred because they are so tightly intertwined. Like two roots that have grown together, how do you separate the diseased parts without damaging both?

I would imagine you are talking about Canada and Mexico. Corruption appears to increase inequality. One segment gains at the expense of the other, but in the long run they both suffer from being economically stunted. Like a body that is deprived of nutrition to the lower extremities, it does not grow tall and limps along. The head does not realize how much higher it would have been if it had not deprived part of the body it's essential needs.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

The only way to get rid of them is to privatize the particular Gov service

why?

[-] 0 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

I am open to other suggestions.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that is all then

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Another way is to do what Walker did and pass a law making public sector union collective bargaining illegal. I am not a fan of letting the Gov steal freedom from the people. The Gov is too powerful already. No more laws, but get Gov out of the business of business. Privatize as much as possible.

Start with the failing public schools. We are 3rd in the world in cost per student and 27 in math and science. A national disgrace.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Gov out of the business of business. Privatize as much as possible.

it's like a sell out

[-] -1 points by 1sealyon (434) 2 years ago

Well, you can also look at it like that lump you just found under your arm.

You can see the lump. It is near the surface. It is not very big. You could probably get a clean Exacto knife and cut it out yourself. On second thought it might be better to find the best Surgeon and Oncologist around to take care of the problem. Hire an expert instead of trying to do it yourself.

Most cities and towns are not experts in, say, super-fund site remediation. They should probably hire an expert corporation to do that work.

The same is true for education. Have you been to a recent meeting of your local city government? Have you listened to them speak? Would you trust them to make decisions about your child's education knowing that you have absolutely no say about it?

[-] -2 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

So the public employee unions who bargained for outsized benefits haven't put public financing at risk? Gray Davis, the former governor of CA, cut a pension and healthcare deal with the union representing the highway patrol workers that was so out of bounds that it puts all of the other worker pensions at risk of underfunding. Is there corruption there?

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Please read my comments. Nowhere do I support corruption that exists within unions.

Union membership has dropped from 20% in 1983 to just 12% in 2011. There is no comparison in the level of threat that corrupt unions pose compared to corrupt corporations.

Unions greatest threat is to the profits of corporations.

[-] -2 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Disagree, the benefits that the public employee unions have gained from the municipalities are bankrupting them right now. This doesn't condone bad behaviour from corporations but we have a way of dealing with that called the law.

[-] 4 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Name one Ceo, banker, or official charged with a crime that resulted in the near collapse of the US economy in 2007-2008? Not one. There is no law when corruption enforces it.

[-] 0 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

It's not against the law to offer a loan to a subprime credit. If so, then the person who borrowed the money should be charged as well. The banks didn't cause the problem, it was caused by cheap money, just the way the tech boom in 99 was and the commodity boom a few years ago.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Cheap money has no will. The people who made the cheap money available had the will and should be responsible for the risk they took. Instead people who did not take the risk paid the bailout for those that did.

[-] 0 points by Krowell (-69) 2 years ago

Let me be clear, I don't think the bank equity holders should have been bailed out. They should have lost everything. Those people are different than the employees who made loans.

My issue is that the real problem is cheap money, not that there are bad actors. There always will be. If we don't come up with a rule based system for money supply then this will happen again and probably is right now just in the treasury and commodity markets.

I don't blame the bankers just like I don't blame the borrowers nor the regulators. They are peripheral to the real problem. I do think that both Bush and Obama administrations made a mistake in the bailouts. They should have let them re-organize.

[-] 1 points by penguento (362) 2 years ago

The one obvious difference being that if you don't like some corporation, you can do business elsewhere. Taxes are taken from people coercively, through force of law, with legal consequences for trying to avoid them.

Like it or not, people see that difference as significant. And like it or not, most people don't see businesses, big or otherwise, the way you do. Not because they're sheep, not because they're uninformed, but because they disagree.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The people do see the taxes that are forcibly taken go to hundreds of corporations to support endless wars. Have you seen the polls on public support for the war in Afghanistan? They are overwhelmingly against it. We don't have the choice of buying from another company. We either keep paying or go to jail.

Billions more of our tax dollars went to failed banks and other institutions worldwide, not just in the U.S. Again our overwhelming majority of calls and emails to not bail them out were ignored.

Between unions and corporations, the latter is the much greater evil. Who do you think portrays the unions in a bad light? Corporate leaders who will benefit by their demise. The thirteen out of state billionaires who backed Walker. Did they do it for Democracy? Or for their own private war on unions which will eventually benefit them financially?

Democracy in Wisconsin was trampled by out of state money from both sides. They came into another families home (Wisconsin) and tried to decide for them how it should be run. Democracy belongs to the people within that family, or locality, or state, or nation. No others have a right to influence it's decisions.

I hope you are right and the voters made what they thought was the proper decision. But I can't believe that a proper decision was made with such an excessive and lopsided amount of money flowing through the airwaves of that state.

[-] 1 points by bemindful (23) 2 years ago

Refreshing to read a voice of reason.

[-] 0 points by bears101 (-37) 2 years ago

Someone has to balance out the Union money.

[-] -1 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

Taxpayers in Wisconsin have grown tired of feeding the union boss. What has happened in Wisconsin is now starting to happen in other States as well. Americans taxpayers like myself are tired of contributing to these corrupt union thugs.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

If Walker wants to mess with private sector unions I'll believe it when I see it. Good luck with that.

[-] 0 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

Who is saying anything about private unions?

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

OK, you're right. If the issue is money in the Walker election Wisconsin is a poor model. Recalls are widely unpopular and I believe this one was especially. Many people claimed they voted for Walker but will vote dem in 2012. I wish people would stop using Wisconsin as a case against Citizens United. There will be other opportunities to oppose Citizens United.

[-] 0 points by camams (7) 2 years ago

For the most part, I am glad that it is over with. There is many more things going on in the Country that is a lot more important than Wisconsin

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

I'm very glad it's over. You generalized about unions but there different kinds. Saying Walker fought the unions is a half-truth.

[-] -1 points by shadzworth (-394) 2 years ago

So you must be completely against Soros Buffet,Maher and all of the rest of the super rich Contribs to Obama?

[-] -1 points by foreeverLeft (-264) 2 years ago

Well, that 21 million from the unions was pretty good for Barrett!

[-] -1 points by tedscrat70 (-35) 2 years ago

Quit whining! Money can be thrown all over the place. It is the person who votes. For every large money donor on the R side, there is a George Soros and a flock of Hollywood flakes on the D side.