The war on public sector unions hurts teachers, police, and firefighters

28 posts / 0 new

Mitt Romney has come out in staunch opposition to hiring more public workers, and other Republicans – from Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie – have demonized public workers as a drain on our economy. But who exactly are these Republicans talking about when they rail against so-called “public workers?” The answer is: teachers, cops, and firefighters.

As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities uncovered – the majority of public workers being targeted at the state and local level by Republicans aren’t nameless bureaucrats pushing paper – but are actually men and women teaching our children science, patrolling our neighborhoods, and putting out our fires. Seven million teachers make up the largest share of public workers, with 2.4 million cops and firefighters coming in second, and 1.4 million nurses and health professionals coming in third. These are the people who are being most effected by Republicans austerity.

As the White House reported – a quarter-million teachers have lost their jobs in the last three years thanks to budget cuts. Altogether more than 600,000 public sectors workers have been laid off – mostly by Republican Governors – since President Obama took office. Had these American still had a job – then the unemployment rate could be as much as a full point lower than it is today.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

Thom, out of one side of your mouth you praise public unions, then out of the other side, you bemoan the fact that a bunch of those workers have ben laid off. DUH!!! Simple economics says that when a union gets involved, the wages go up, but the number of workers getting those wages goes down. I know you progressives don't like that fact, but you cannot avoid reality!

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

We can avoid cliches and myths such as the one you put forth here. I am sorry, that was "simpleton economics" gives you that formula.

Or maybe it is just the "game player" perspective as distinguished from the "game manager" responsibility. When unions get involved, the perspective of the "game player" who is out to maximize personal interest is faced with "a problem." He can either decide to work with the union as a partner to find the most equitable and productive congruence of interests; or, he can try to bust the union so he can leverage down the wages of the workers. As "game player," the latter course is very tempting because smart bosses think they can beat the system and make more money if their workers are not organized. Maybe right in the short-term, but not in the long-term values.

The accounting problems for those who ignore the game manager role are all about playing the individual game player roles. When you have to ante up and cover the costs of the game, as well as its management for "sustainability" and "integrity," you have a reason to invest in the game as well as in your player opportunity.

Unions may drive up the cost of labor, but they also insure "certainty" in the cost of labor and in its function. Bosses have somewhere to go to complain too. Bosses don't need to waste time on personal squabbles among the workers. Unions also help keep up your property values by making more people able to participate in the economy and buy and produce. The economy stays healthy instead of choking on the wealth/poverty glut. Economic energy flows.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Sorry, you cannot escape the simple truth, as unions push their wages up, they reduce the number of jobs at that higher wage. I know that "simpleton economics" principal really upsets you, but facts are very stubbron things. And that "simpleton economics" principal is a fact, whether you like it or not.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

UNFUNDED Pension liability in the 9 WORST cities. All public sector unions promises now passed to taxpayer.

#9 Detroit
Current Mayor: David Bing (Dem 2009)
Streak of Democrat Mayors: unbroken since 1962
Unfunded liability: $6.4 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $18,643
Solvency horizon: 2023

#8 Baltimore
Current Mayor: Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
Streak of Democrat Mayors: unbroken since 1967
Unfunded liability: $3.7 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $15,420
Solvency horizon: 2022

#7 New York City
Current Mayor: Michael Bloomberg (Independent since 2007, before that, Republican)
Preceded by Republicans since 1994
Streak of Democrat Mayors before 1994: unbroken since 1946
Unfunded liability: $122.2 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $38,886
Solvency horizon: 2021

#6 Jacksonville
Current Mayor: John Peyton (Republican in office since 2003)
Preceded by Ed Austin Jr. who switched his party from Democrat to Republican during his 1991-1995 term in office
Streak of Democrat Mayors before 1993: unbroken since 1888!
Unfunded liability: $4 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $12,994
Solvency horizon: 2020

#5 St. Paul
Current Mayor: Chris Coleman (Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party in office since 2006)
DFL has dominated St Paul since 1972, sometimes running as DFL/Democrat.
Streak of Democrat Mayors before 1972: unbroken since 1926.
Unfunded liability: $1.4 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $13,686
Solvency horizon: 2020
Note: These numbers refer to St. Paul’s largest pension, a teachers fund.

#4 Cincinnati
Current Mayor: Mark Mallory
Streak of Democrat or Charty Party Mayors: unbroken since 1971
Unfunded liability: $2 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $15,681
Solvency horizon: 2020

#3 Boston
Current Mayor: Thomas Menino
Streak of Democrat Mayors: since 1902 (with only two exceptions, totaling 6 years collectively)
Unfunded liability: $7.5 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $30,901
Solvency horizon: 2019

#2 Chicago
Current Mayor: Richard Daley
Streak of Democrat Mayors: unbroken since 1931
Unfunded liability: $44.8 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $41,966
Solvency horizon: 2019

#1 Philadelphia
Current Mayor: Michael Nutter
Streak of Democrat Mayors: unbroken since 1952
Unfunded liability: $9 billion
Unfunded liability per household: $16,690
Solvency horizon: 2015

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

Republicans will fix it, just kill all the pensions and the people on them will just be block granted through the state financial managers like Michigan did. They'll get new groupon deals for catfood, though and the pension savings will mean tax cuts for the job creators, aka the financial houses that stole the pensions in the first place.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Republicans will fix it, just kill all the pensions and the people on them will just be block granted through the state financial managers like Michigan did. They'll get new groupon deals for catfood, though and the pension savings will mean tax cuts for the job creators, aka the financial houses that stole the pensions in the first place.

Sorry the problem lies with the spineless politicians who negotiated the deals, then did not bother to fund the pension plans.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

So let me get this right...

1. Public sector unions have NO choice on being in the union if want the job. (most current workers did not have any vote on this)

2. Union bosses collect mandatory dues from these workers. (no choice)

3. Union bosses pump money into campaigns of Democrat candidate that makes the biggest promises (overtime, pensions, $0 copay health, retire at 55 with 75% of last 3 years, tenure, etc...)

4. Politician gets elected enacts BAD legislation to repay the Union boss (doesnt matter the politician will be gone when bill is due)

5. The debt to pay for these unfunded promises grow and eats into other public services

6. Debt crisis is reached and politician that had little to do with the promises of previous decades now faces a choice. Raise taxes, lay off workers, or cut benefits.

- If they raise personal or property taxes middle class gets hurt

- If they raise corporate taxes, business leaves and unemployment spikes

- If they lay off workers that is not good either

- they are left with one choice. Ask for concessions or cut benefits.

7. Union bosses get mad because less benefits = less dues = less political power

8. They get the inflated rat out, bring out the bull horn and play the sympothy card that teachers, fire fighters, cops will be laid off resulting in the following:

- Schools decline and kids become idiots (after 50 years of unionized education we are already there!)

- Everyones house will be burned to the ground as there will be no firefighters (probably arson from union hacks)

- Police wont be there and you will get mugged (probably by Jamie Dimon of JP Chase?)

9. Politician makes tough choices (that should have been made long time ago) to balance budgets and protect the 94% of us that are NOT in a union and really dont want to pay more for their crooked deals between union thugs and sympathetic Dems

10. The best and brightest teachers, courageous firefighters, and honorable police men are too stupid to find any other employment and as you state they all end up eating cat food?

11. Somewhere this is a smoke filled room with cigars and cognac with a bunch of monacle wearing evil bankers laughing at the whole process in the best Boris Badenov laugh with $1000 bills falling form their pockets?

That is your assesment of how the bankers screwed the workers???

liberalsyndrome's picture
liberalsyndrome
Joined:
Jun. 15, 2012 6:27 pm

I used to be a fireman and slide down a pole, but all I got was the shaft

I used to be a cop and fight crime, until the criminals got too big to cuff

I used to be a teacher, but was taught an ugly truth

I still think liberalsyndrome is a fool

MEJ's picture
MEJ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Posted at 4:44 PM ET, 03/ 1/2011

What you need to know about state pension systems

By Ezra Klein

Let's forget about unions and collective bargaining. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says this is all about state pension funds. So let's take a look at them.

This paper (PDF) by Dean Baker is one of the clearest examinations of the pension funds, and what's happened to them, that I've seen. The big takeaway is this: "the main contributor to the current funding problem facing public pension funds was the collapse of the housing bubble and the subsequent downturn in the economy and the stock market." Before understanding what may or may not happen to state pension funds, and what can or cannot be done about it, you need to understand that.

Pension funds invest in various financial products. That means their projections assume some sort of rate of return on those investments. Before the crisis, their projections were perhaps a bit more optimistic than the data supported, but they weren't much more optimistic. The problem, as Baker says, is that we then had a financial crisis that was deeper and longer than anything we've experienced since World War II. "The managers of these funds obviously failed to recognize the housing bubble and the dangers it posed to the economy," Baker writes, "but this was true of the vast majority of economic and business analysts at the time."

This miscalculation, not union greed, is what has left state pension plans in apparent crisis. The conventional analysis right now is that pension plans are underfunded to the tune of about a trillion dollars (though there are good questions about how honestly state pension data are reported). If the stock market had simply performed as well as Treasury bonds in recent years, about $850 billion of that shortfall wouldn't exist. Much of the remaining gap is explained by states cutting back on contributions because they need to balance their wrecked budgets.

But Baker -- who did predict the housing crisis and so has some actual credibility on this subject -- thinks that some analysts have perhaps overlearned the lessons of the past few years. They're predicting rates of return going forward, he argues, that are much lower than what we should expect. He expects returns averaging around 7 percent from 2012 to 2022 -- not the 4 percent or so that some analysts are predicting.

In the final part of his paper, Baker warns that the dire talk of trillions in unfunded liabilities mainly confuses people. "The relevant context is the size of the projected shortfalls relative to the size of the state economies," he writes. Using data from the National Association of State Pension Fund Administrators -- which show a shortfall of about $650 billion over the next 30 years -- he calculates that the states are looking at funding gaps that range from 0.2 percent of their economies to 0.5 percent. Not nothing, but not an unmanageable crisis. The only way it becomes an unmanageable crisis is if the economy never recovers and thus the rates of return end up lower than we would expect and state economies end up smaller than we expect. But in that case, state pensions will be the least of our problems.

By Ezra Klein | March 1, 2011; 4:44 PM ET
Categories: Budget

facts are a problem with fox believers. Fraud crashes the economy? answer: union thugs. Defined benefit pension plans? answer:huh? ERISA? answer: HUH?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote liberalsyndrome:

4. Politician gets elected enacts BAD legislation... (doesnt matter the politician will be gone when bill is due)

I might support civil service labor agreeements that last for only 2 year periods, when a new legislative body is elected, to deal with this problem.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote liberalsyndrome:

4. Politician gets elected enacts BAD legislation... (doesnt matter the politician will be gone when bill is due)

I might support civil service labor agreeements that last for only 2 year periods, when a new legislative body is elected, to deal with this problem.

And then negotiate a fixed contribution by the taxpayers into the union retirement system, and let the union manage it as they see fit. That would keep us out of the mess we are in now.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

If we could convince conservatives to vote for people who appreciate the importance of governing we could debate policy differences without doing damage to our common interests and needs. As it is, all the bad governing has left the Democrats trying to fix the damage rather than build a better model.

In the matter of employing people to do work we need done, it would help if the conservatives did not make the workers into political pawns in their attack on government and were willing to honor their contracts. O darn, it might mean having to raise the taxes to pay for what has been promised.

If they were only a tenth as concerned about dealing with the fraud on Wall St. as they are with stripping public union folk of their earned and contracted money, we might believe some of their concern about "bad" management having promised workers more than they ought to have. How do they set the wages for work best done by the State in its value return to the taxpayer/customer?

We get to complain about teachers pay, but not about the Wall St. bonuses? Somehow, the privateer sector does not take "our" money and give us nothing or worse in return while any tax money that is not able to withstand the Monday Morning Quarterback Crowd is a rank offense. It makes no sense to my wallet. I just want the best value returned on what is taken from it.

At that point, I feel a lot better about the teachers and nurses than I do about a lot of other decent people in fields less essential. To compare them with the banksters is to be absurd because they add value while the latter are parasitical vampires. Were the system healthy, I would have more respect for its professional technocrats and the value of their work. Still, there are many doing the best they can to control the damage done to people, so I would prefer to speak of solidarity for workers than to play divide and conquer as the bosses want.

The Rovian strategy of attacking the strength to smear it is at play here, again. Besmirch the value of those who are most inspired by service rather than greed. Complain about their unions and "fat cat" contracts even though they are miniscule compared to the Corporate perks passed out in the suites. Make the screwed private sector workers jealous of the decent jobs in the public sector where "bosses" have not been allowed to run tyrannies. Don't lift up the private sector workers, and don't remember when private pay was much higher than in the public sector. Avoid confronting the powerful and beat up on the vulnerable.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

If we could convince conservatives to vote for people who appreciate the importance of governing we could debate policy differences without doing damage to our common interests and needs. As it is, all the bad governing has left the Democrats trying to fix the damage rather than build a better model.

In the matter of employing people to do work we need done, it would help if the conservatives did not make the workers into political pawns in their attack on government and were willing to honor their contracts. O darn, it might mean having to raise the taxes to pay for what has been promised.

If they were only a tenth as concerned about dealing with the fraud on Wall St. as they are with stripping public union folk of their earned and contracted money, we might believe some of their concern about "bad" management having promised workers more than they ought to have. How do they set the wages for work best done by the State in its value return to the taxpayer/customer?

We get to complain about teachers pay, but not about the Wall St. bonuses? Somehow, the privateer sector does not take "our" money and give us nothing or worse in return while any tax money that is not able to withstand the Monday Morning Quarterback Crowd is a rank offense. It makes no sense to my wallet. I just want the best value returned on what is taken from it.

At that point, I feel a lot better about the teachers and nurses than I do about a lot of other decent people in fields less essential. To compare them with the banksters is to be absurd because they add value while the latter are parasitical vampires. Were the system healthy, I would have more respect for its professional technocrats and the value of their work. Still, there are many doing the best they can to control the damage done to people, so I would prefer to speak of solidarity for workers than to play divide and conquer as the bosses want.

The Rovian strategy of attacking the strength to smear it is at play here, again. Besmirch the value of those who are most inspired by service rather than greed. Complain about their unions and "fat cat" contracts even though they are miniscule compared to the Corporate perks passed out in the suites. Make the screwed private sector workers jealous of the decent jobs in the public sector where "bosses" have not been allowed to run tyrannies. Don't lift up the private sector workers, and don't remember when private pay was much higher than in the public sector. Avoid confronting the powerful and beat up on the vulnerable.

Sorry you and I are in no position to complain about what a private corporation pays its people, CEOs included. But I do realize the frustration of people seeing the salaries of CEOs in companies that have been bailed out by the government, especially if that person was at the top when the ship went down.

And the problem with the pubic workers are the gutless politicians who negotiated the deals that could not be paid for. They were just buying the public union's votes, and left the scene when the problems hit.

And you simply cannot raise taxes to solve the problem. The unfunded pension liability in Illinois is about 4-5 times what the total state budget is right now. Are you going to raise taxes to make up that difference? It won't take long before everyone flees the state to avoid the Illinois state tax, that is already happening now.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

What Thom doesn't say is why they were laid off. He doesn't say if they were providing more to society than they take in on our tax dollars. Governments need to ask themselves, do we really need to employ X amount of people? Hiring workers on tax payer money for the sake of keeping the population employed is bad economics. They need to have a purpose.

Entitlement Society's picture
Entitlement Society
Joined:
Jun. 6, 2012 12:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:
Quote drc2:

If we could convince conservatives to vote for people who appreciate the importance of governing we could debate policy differences without doing damage to our common interests and needs. As it is, all the bad governing has left the Democrats trying to fix the damage rather than build a better model.

In the matter of employing people to do work we need done, it would help if the conservatives did not make the workers into political pawns in their attack on government and were willing to honor their contracts. O darn, it might mean having to raise the taxes to pay for what has been promised.

If they were only a tenth as concerned about dealing with the fraud on Wall St. as they are with stripping public union folk of their earned and contracted money, we might believe some of their concern about "bad" management having promised workers more than they ought to have. How do they set the wages for work best done by the State in its value return to the taxpayer/customer?

We get to complain about teachers pay, but not about the Wall St. bonuses? Somehow, the privateer sector does not take "our" money and give us nothing or worse in return while any tax money that is not able to withstand the Monday Morning Quarterback Crowd is a rank offense. It makes no sense to my wallet. I just want the best value returned on what is taken from it.

At that point, I feel a lot better about the teachers and nurses than I do about a lot of other decent people in fields less essential. To compare them with the banksters is to be absurd because they add value while the latter are parasitical vampires. Were the system healthy, I would have more respect for its professional technocrats and the value of their work. Still, there are many doing the best they can to control the damage done to people, so I would prefer to speak of solidarity for workers than to play divide and conquer as the bosses want.

The Rovian strategy of attacking the strength to smear it is at play here, again. Besmirch the value of those who are most inspired by service rather than greed. Complain about their unions and "fat cat" contracts even though they are miniscule compared to the Corporate perks passed out in the suites. Make the screwed private sector workers jealous of the decent jobs in the public sector where "bosses" have not been allowed to run tyrannies. Don't lift up the private sector workers, and don't remember when private pay was much higher than in the public sector. Avoid confronting the powerful and beat up on the vulnerable.

Sorry you and I are in no position to complain about what a private corporation pays its people, CEOs included. But I do realize the frustration of people seeing the salaries of CEOs in companies that have been bailed out by the government, especially if that person was at the top when the ship went down.

And the problem with the pubic workers are the gutless politicians who negotiated the deals that could not be paid for. They were just buying the public union's votes, and left the scene when the problems hit.

And you simply cannot raise taxes to solve the problem. The unfunded pension liability in Illinois is about 4-5 times what the total state budget is right now. Are you going to raise taxes to make up that difference? It won't take long before everyone flees the state to avoid the Illinois state tax, that is already happening now.

I guess you didn't read the article about the origins of the pension shortfall. Nobody promised more than they could afford. They entrusted too much of their fund to wall street crooks. Had they invested in only t-bills, 2/3rds of the shortfall wouldn't even exist. AAA rated investment vehicles would normally return a surplus to pensionfunds after covering payouts according to commonly accepted actuarial tables. AAA was not supposed to be crap being peddled so the seller could short it.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Here's a link to the article pasted in Post #10:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/03/what_you_need_to_kno...

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Here is the problem. How do you get the general public to feel sorry for folks who's salary, benefits and pension far exceed their own? Especially when the average Joe is forced to pay for his own benefts plus the salary and benefits of those in the public sector. That's a tough sell. The days of insulating public workers from all sacrifice are over. Nobody is special or protected. We're all in this mess together.

Would someone please post a quote where a prominent conservative has "demonized" public workers? Thanks in advance.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

How do you get the general public to feel sorry for folks who's salary, benefits and pension far exceed their own?

I don't think the general public feels sorry about the salary, benefits and bonuses of the Einsteins on Wall Street or Corporate suites who crashed the economy.

Especially when the average Joe is forced to pay for his own benefts plus the salary and benefits of those in the public sector. That's a tough sell.

I see....but it's OK through bailouts, tax cuts, and various subsidies,to fund the salary and benefits and bonuses of the corporate geniuses who crashed the economy.

The days of insulating public workers from all sacrifice are over.

So, I trust the merry days of insulating from sacrifice those geniuses in the corporate elite, who crashed the economy, continue?

Nobody is special or protected.

Except for Corporate executives, Wall Street and bankers, the "Masters of the Universe," who crashed the economy, right?

We're all in this mess together.

Oh, so NOW collectivism works? I'm sure the geniuses in Corporate executives and Wall Street, who crashed the economy, are exempt from the "we?"

Would someone please post a quote where a prominent conservative has "demonized" public workers?

Friend, you've got to be kidding. Just listen to conervative talk radio or watch Fox.

Now tell me - just how do you blame public worker unions for a recession caused by those Einsteins in the private sector? Now, when you include those Wall Street geniuses in the "we" of the "we are all in this together," .....i.e. CLAWBACKS.....then maybe then I'd support some reasonable trimming of public worker benefits/pensions. Until then, no way.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

We have no right to criticize what anyone in corporate america is gettting paid, that is a private transaction in the private sector. Having said that, I do understand the frustration of some who see the huge bonuses being paid to the CEOs of the banks that got bailed out by the taxpayers. Even a card carrying right winger like me thinks that smells a little. However if the CEO involved was not at the helm when the bailout occured, then the arguement can be made that the business involved is just paying the going rate for the talent.

Like I have said other places, there will be VERY interesting pubic union negotiation taking place later this year. The Chicago teachers union has autherized a strike. The average Chicago teacher makes $71,000 a year and gets about 10 weeks off in the summer. The average Chicago taxpayer makes $48,000 and get about 3 weeks off. Yet the teachers union is asking for a 29% raise.

The City of Chicago is broke and running a deficit. It will be VERY interestng to see how Rahm Emanuel (Democrat, mayor of Chicago, former Chief of staff for Barak Obama) handles this one. He has already asked other public unions for wage concessions. When they refused, he laid a percentage of those union members roughly equal to the wage concesions he was asking for. Wow, sounds just like a mean and nasty Republican to me!

With what happened is Wisconsin in the background, he very well could tell them "sorry no raise, the money is not there". The Democratic Govenor of Illinois recently cancelled the negotiated raises for the pubic workers because the legistature did not approve the money. The money simply was not there. And that decision stood up in court.

Like I said, a very interesting situation in Chicago. Stay tuned.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:We have no right to criticize what anyone in corporate america is gettting paid, that is a private transaction in the private sector. Having said that, I do understand the frustration of some who see the huge bonuses being paid to the CEOs of the banks that got bailed out by the taxpayers.

I believe that gives us a right to criticize. And many of those private transactions in the private sector are rigged deals with stacked Boards of Directors, screwing shareholders.

However if the CEO involved was not at the helm when the bailout occured, then the arguement can be made that the business involved is just paying the going rate for the talent.

Well, too bad they were paying the "going rate" for the outgoing loser also.....I'm sure the incoming dirtbag used that to his negotiating advantage.....if a the loser who crashed the company right into a brick wall was making $10 mil, now much will the "saviour" demand?.....Can you say CLAWBACK?

The Chicago teachers union has autherized a strike. The average Chicago teacher makes $71,000 a year and gets about 10 weeks off in the summer. The average Chicago taxpayer makes $48,000 and get about 3 weeks off. Yet the teachers union is asking for a 29% raise.

The City of Chicago is broke and running a deficit. It will be VERY interestng to see how Rahm Emanuel (Democrat, mayor of Chicago, former Chief of staff for Barak Obama) handles this one. already asked other public unions for wage concessions. When they refused, he laid a percentage of those union meHe has mbers roughly equal to the wage concesions he was asking for. Wow, sounds just like a mean and nasty Republican to me!

Emmanuel is a DINO dirtbag, and he should be a Republican. An investment banker who pushed through NAFTA. Don't think many Dems here will claim him..... Sadly, though, with the city's problems, he was probably the best choice in a weak field for Mayor though... Not following this closely, but If I'm not mistaken, He reneged on 4% promised raise for the teachers for a longer work day. That's part of the issue. He probably plans to give that to "job creators", not deficit reduction! LOL!.... Considering the Teacher's union can't cut a quiet fart without bad front page press from the Chicago Tribune, who favors nothing more than another dollar going into a CEO pocket, I'm not optimistic for the outcome for this. Since the right and the Chicago Tribune has been so successful in demonizing unions, I don't think they will strike though. I predict a tiny raise and compromise to save face.

[/quote]

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote al3:

I believe that gives us a right to criticize. And many of those private transactions in the private sector are rigged deals with stacked Boards of Directors, screwing shareholder

If the shareholders are getting screwed, it is their own fault. They need to vote in a new Board of Directors. Again, this is a private transaction that the government has no business being in.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm
Quote mauiman58:
Quote al3:

I believe that gives us a right to criticize. And many of those private transactions in the private sector are rigged deals with stacked Boards of Directors, screwing shareholder

If the shareholders are getting screwed, it is their own fault. They need to vote in a new Board of Directors. Again, this is a private transaction that the government has no business being in.

Quote mauiman58:If the shareholders are getting screwed, it is their own fault.

Translation: "I'm gonna try to get away with as much as I can to enrich myself!....and if you don't catch me, it's your fault!".....

They need to vote in a new Board of Directors. Again, this is a private transaction that the government has no business being in.

The government has every right to be in that business if people are getting ripped off, especially taxpayers. Capitalism will fail if it becomes a succession of ponzi schemes and bubbles. The Herman Cain-esque "Blame yo-self," I know is very attractive to vultures, but it will lead to ultimate failure.

al3's picture
al3
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

If there is fraud fine, but despite what you might think, outright fraud is rare on a percentage basis. Decent sized corportions have procedures in place to stop it. Have those procedures failed in the past, of course they have! Does the government have a right to make sure they are collecting all the taxes they should from individuals and businesses, of course they do!

But somehow you have the notion that everyone in the private sector is a crook, and every elected official is a saint. I have some very bad news for you. on a percentage basis there are as many crooks in government as there are in the private sector.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

Just fior record, here is an article from the Chicago Tribune telling what mayor Raum Emanuel might do to save a few bucks on labor at O'Hare airport. Remember, he is Obama's former chief of staff.

Sounds like he is considering a very nasty Republican move here.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-airport-union-contract-20120705,0,4860150.story

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

The shareholders do get dividends in the upsurge part of the Ponzi, but if you think there is any "internal control" or systems stabilization to keep fraud down, how do you account for them buying the laws that make crime legal? When they are ripping off the union pension funds, what do they care about the fact that those pensions were placed in "their trust?" They have no conscience and have justified their crimes as honor and glory. By the time the shareholders are holding the bag, all the banksters and cronies have evacuated the sinking ship. Blame the stockholders, not the rats.

BTW, you can have the Rahmster and a Blue Dog to be named later if we can get Viper Assa in return so we can cut him and send him back to San Diego. Oh heck, just take Rahm especially after he did such a good job for your side advising Obama.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote mauiman58:

...outright fraud is rare on a percentage basis. Decent sized corportions have procedures in place to stop it. ...on a percentage basis there are as many crooks in government as there are in the private sector.

I'm not going to challenge your percentages and your data. But it seems to me that your thoughts suggest that larger organizations have a lower incidence of fraud/wrongdoing than smaller ones have (on a percentage basis, of course.) So, for example, if school textbooks were approved and purchased at the federal level, we would expect less corruption than at 50+ lower state levels.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote drc2:

BTW, you can have the Rahmster and a Blue Dog to be named later if we can get Viper Assa in return so we can cut him and send him back to San Diego. Oh heck, just take Rahm especially after he did such a good job for your side advising Obama.

The point is even Democrat Emanuel knows his first loyalty has to be to the Chicago taxpayers, not the janitor's union. If he feels like he can get better service at a lower price from a non union shop, that's the way he has to go.

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

Currently Chatting

Can Democrats Set Out a New Path?

Democrats must embrace a pro-government platform, not run away from it.

Those were the sentiments of Senator Chuck Schumer today, in a speech given at the National Press Club. Talking about the reasons for Democrats’ losses on Election Day, Schumer said that those losses were proof that the American people and middle-class want a government that will work more effectively for them.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system