Charles Woodson and Wis. Protesters

Again I'm here to say, and I hope nobody snaps on me this time, that there should be no name calling. Not in this thread, not anywhere on the forums.

Please discuss this in a mature fashion. Thank you.

Crime and Courts: Maybe $7.5 million is a little high, state says of Capitol damage estimate

$7.5 million for mostly tape removal? those damn destructive protesters lol

Hats off to Ohio who passed a stricter version of the law than Wisconsin with not nearly the nastiness.

It is an interesting argument. I agree it is important to get more people to buy Health Insurance. The more people that buy, the more costs go down. Large groups could force big discounts. However the comparison to auto and home insurance does not really work. There is a compulsory aspect to both auto and home insurance. States require auto insurance if you want to drive, banks require home insurance if you have mortgage and about 70% of homes have mortgages. So this forces people into the system that would not otherwise buy insurance. This aspect is not present in heath insurance. Tax breaks may sound good, but they do not force people into the system.

cakoski,

Since you mention a comparison of health insurance to auto and home owner insurance I assume you are addressing my post. I am not advocating for forcing people into the system (“Tax breaks may sound good but…”). In fact I think forcing citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. The analogy to auto and homeowners insurance has nothing to do with their compulsory nature, it has to do with (in this case) exponentially expanding the supply of available policies from which to choose. The result would be more consumer choice and more competition for our business. I can’t think of a good reason to restrict health insurance companies and not auto and homeowner insurers.


Good point, towanda. BTW, I find it interesting that I’m not hearing and reading more about the comparison of Wisconsin public employees after Walkers budget repair bill passes and federal employees. If Walker’s bill and Ohio’s new law are so outrageous, I wonder why the President, with a Senate and House completely controlled by Democrats before Senator Kennedy’s death, didn’t address the situation with federal employees right away.

I agree. One fundamental difference: You have a choice whether to buy a car or a home. If you are compelled by government to buy something just by virtue of the fact that you are breathing, that is another story entirely.

Oh there was some nastiness lol. Our Gov is now Hitler too lol. Every time we listened to John Kasich talk during his campaign he sais he was not going to be like by A LOT of the people holding onto the status quo. Boy was he right! I love him though.

It is true you are not required to buy a car or get home, but once you do are forced to get it. This increases the number of customers and reduces costs. I feel it is important to increase the number of people and if possible group them together. People buying as a group have the ability to force prices down and it protects members from getting canceled if they get a serious illness. I think that with some of the other proposals mentioned here could drive down costs.

Second, federal employees are allowed to unionize. In fact about 30% do belong to a union. The Civil Service Reform Act preserves the right to collectively bargain with the federal government. Wages, hours and beinifits are set by the government, but other things are open to negotiation this is different then what Walker purposes.
http//www.mackinac.org/2323

Also what is the proof that Roosevelt opposed public unions?

Roosevelt didn't oppose public unions, only collective bargaining for public unions. You can google it to find commentary supporting that point, and there's a copy of the letter he wrote stating his opinion that collective bargaining for public worker unions is a bad thing in this very thread.

It's a law to have auto insurance because you can damage someone else's property or cause physical harm to another person.

There is no law requiring homeowners insurance, but lenders require it so they can protect their own investments.

I see your point about increasing the number of people who buy health insurance, but how would you enforce it? Doctors are required to treat you regardless of insurance status, so that's not an incentive. Would you fine people who go without? If so, how much?

I'm open to the idea of making sure people have at least some kind of minimum coverage, but first I think you need to make it so plans can be purchased across state lines, and second, you need Tort reform. Once those measures are in effect, you'll see costs come down and the number of insured go up. Then you can start to implement a plan where people are required to buy it.

Aren’t wages, hours and benefits the most important issues to be bargained? And you are correct, that is different than what Walker proposes. Walker’s bill allows public unions to bargain wages within limits, but not benefits. Again, just like the vast majority of employees in this country.

SpartaChris is correct, there is evidence of it posted on this thread. In addition, here's an Op Ed which recently appeared in the NY Times. While its author is a fellow at the Heritage foundation, would you agree the NY Times would not run if it contained an obvious error regarding a liberal icon? I think it is also instructive because it includes quotes from George Meany. Here’s an excerpt from the Op Ed titled, Wisconsin's Blow to Union Power and subtitled, F.D.R. Warned Us:

“'It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.'

That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany - the former president of the A.F.L. - C.I.O - in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd.

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this 'unthinkable and intolerable'.”

Later in the piece the author writes, “Governor Walker’s plan reasserts voter control over government policy. Voters’ elected representatives should decide how the government spends their taxes. More states should heed the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Executive Council’s 1959 advice: “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer sums up the reason public unions should not be allowed to collectively bargain with governments as their private colleagues can. In an Op Ed titled, Rubicon: A river in Wisconsin, he writes: “In the private sector, the capitalist knows that when he negotiates with the union, if he gives away the store, he loses his shirt. In the public sector, the politicians who approve any deal have none of their own money at stake. On the contrary, the more favorably they dispose of union demands, the more likely they are to be the beneficiary of union largess in the next election. It's the perfect cozy setup."

Are you suggesting that I can't have an opinion?
Some folks who are on this thread are not from Wisconsin but are sharing their views and opinions on this as well. Why not go after them too?
Even though I don't agree with some of them, I appreciate having a healthy mindful mature discussion/debate with them.
We are not pointing fingers at each other, like you did in your post at me. And when you point one finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back.

To answer your question: I didn't like either choice. I usually vote third party. And frankly, I don't remember who I voted for governor.
But that doesn't matter now. All that matters is that we now have a gov. who, so far, isn't showing that he gives a damn about the people or the environment about Wisconsin. He is setting back progress by DECADES with his proposed bad ideas.
Wisconsin has a proud history, a tradition of being a progressive state. And as you can see, we do not like it when someone comes along and tries to mess that up.
Our state motto is "Forward." And this guy is trying to change that to "Backward."

I promise you this: When, not if, the recall process starts I will be there volunteering to do everything I can to help with the effort to get Wanker voted out of there.

One of the Fab 14 (The hero senators who left the state to block the bill) managed to find a way to get his well earned pay.
AWOL Wisconsin Dem Beats The System, Gets His Paycheck Mailed To Him | TPMDC

Wanker wants to increase environmental damage to Wisconsin
Biz Beat: Energy programs get Walker ax

Yep, never mind we elected him to REPRESENT us. Just don't let us stop him from getting paid while he takes a "vacation".