Those poor Milwaukee teachers

Well, you keep bitching about bought off politicians. The way to rectify that isn't to dismantle public employee unions and eliminate collective bargaining, unless, of course, you only want to eliminate the unions buying off politicians and don't care about the other players buying off politicians. Surely you wouldn't take such a partisan approach.
The way to rectify the problem is to build a bigger facility in Leavenworth and populate it with the bribe takers....

For a politician to whine he needs taxpayer money to run because hes open to accepting bribes to finance his compaign is ludicrous on its face
 
I was only talking about unions and businesses, not non-profits or other advocacy groups.




I was speaking about business more broadly, not suggesting that each individual business spreads money around equally. In the 2010 cycles, contributions by businesses (employees and PACs) totaled $1.3 billion and went 48% Democrat, 47% Republican. Labor unions spent $93 million, 70% to Democrats. (These figures exclude outside, independent expenditures). Again, to me, the former is more concerning that the latter.

Labor unions (and most advocacy groups) are more selective in who they give money to because they have less money to throw around. If they could afford to buy off everyone, they would.


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Yeah, they're more selective alright...they give it to the outright crooks that will do their bidding as ordered.
 
I was only talking about unions and businesses, not non-profits or other advocacy groups.




I was speaking about business more broadly, not suggesting that each individual business spreads money around equally. In the 2010 cycles, contributions by businesses (employees and PACs) totaled $1.3 billion and went 48% Democrat, 47% Republican. Labor unions spent $93 million, 70% to Democrats. (These figures exclude outside, independent expenditures). Again, to me, the former is more concerning that the latter.

Labor unions (and most advocacy groups) are more selective in who they give money to because they have less money to throw around. If they could afford to buy off everyone, they would.


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php
I think it is a strategy, not a necessity.
 
I was only talking about unions and businesses, not non-profits or other advocacy groups.




I was speaking about business more broadly, not suggesting that each individual business spreads money around equally. In the 2010 cycles, contributions by businesses (employees and PACs) totaled $1.3 billion and went 48% Democrat, 47% Republican. Labor unions spent $93 million, 70% to Democrats. (These figures exclude outside, independent expenditures). Again, to me, the former is more concerning that the latter.

Labor unions (and most advocacy groups) are more selective in who they give money to because they have less money to throw around. If they could afford to buy off everyone, they would.


http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php

Those numbers are off....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

The AFSCME alone spent $87m.

I would also like to see where the remainder went for the unions on open secrets site. 70% to Dems, 6% to Reps.... um.... and the other 24%????
 
Busting unions and cheap labor is at the core of the Republicon party's ideology and their master's the Koch brothers. This is about political powers and a huge working class backlash is building. This is an assault on the middle class and they are finally starting to see the radical right for what it is.

Republicons don't want to educate the masses. They realize that public Ignorance is their Strength.

"Wisconsin voters express buyer’s remorse over Gov. Scott Walker

Two months into his first term, a new poll shows Wisconsin voters are unhappy with GOP Gov. Scott Walker--and would send him packing if they were given a do-over of the 2010 election that sent him to the statehouse in Madison."
 
Those numbers are off....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

The AFSCME alone spent $87m.

I would also like to see where the remainder went for the unions on open secrets site. 70% to Dems, 6% to Reps.... um.... and the other 24%????
The other 24% were donated to the ideological portion, which also was stronger for the Ds. Amazingly, several unions alone spent more donating to specific political causes but are not listed there. The ones listed there is 7% of the total money given, and it is missing some of those donations because the money was spent more directly into 527s, etc. 11% of the population have the representation, but the money is donated at a higher percentage than that to partisan political causes.
 
Those numbers are off....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

The AFSCME alone spent $87m.

I would also like to see where the remainder went for the unions on open secrets site. 70% to Dems, 6% to Reps.... um.... and the other 24%????


The numbers are accurate. They just do not include outside expenditures. I use the figures linked because they are the only contributions for the 2010 cycle that can reliably be sourced. As for the other portion, it likely was funneled into 527 Groups are classified by ideology instead of by party.

As for the AFSCME $87 million, that figure is quite questionable given all reporting on the election. Multiple sources post-election have AFSCME at $12 million.
 
ahh planet of college educated. Based on your salary you likely skipped college. $60k is extreemely low for a mid-career college educated person skippy.:whoa:

$55k + $20k in benefits is great for a 26-year-old, at least in my area. It's well above the norm and probably a more than you made at my age (adjusted for inflation), though it would be easy enough for you to lie about it. As for college education, well, I can tell you that most of the young college graduates I know are making less than $15/hr. My ex-girlfriend made even less than that. Why? Because a Masters degree in Communications does very little to help one succeed in the real world, Topspin.

But since it is apparent you will continue to bring this up (it's all you have), the fact of the matter is I am working on my B.S. in applied computing. I graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA and completed my associates degree in '04 with a 3.6 GPA (without studying, ever). Of course, I could have done much better than my A-/B+ average had I actually applied myself.

Does that clear things up for you, Mr. English Lit?
 
$55k + $20k in benefits is great for a 26-year-old, at least in my area. It's well above the norm and probably a more than you made at my age (adjusted for inflation), though it would be easy enough for you to lie about it. As for college education, well, I can tell you that most of the young college graduates I know are making less than $15/hr. My ex-girlfriend made even less than that. Why? Because a Masters degree in Communications does very little to help one succeed in the real world, Topspin.

But since it is apparent you will continue to bring this up (it's all you have), the fact of the matter is I am working on my B.S. in applied computing. I graduated high school with a 4.0 GPA and completed my associates degree in '04 with a 3.6 GPA (without studying, ever). Of course, I could have done much better than my A-/B+ average had I actually applied myself.

Does that clear things up for you, Mr. English Lit?

Good on ya Junior, great major
I agree the teachers are overpaid, I'm just siding with the democrats cause I'm tired of them getting thier ass kicked like they are the cinci bengals or Ohio State luckeyes
 
The really sad part is that we could afford to pay the actual teachers more if we eliminated all the extra bullshit administration that is so incredibly over redundant within the public school systems.

As for your post... people don't expect teachers to live like monks. that is simply nonsense. But we are getting rather tired of idiots like Mott telling us that teachers are actually 'workers' and implying the beloved nonsense of the left that white collar workers don't really 'work'. We are also sick and tired of hearing about retirement at 50-55 for public workers. We are also sick and tired of idiots like Mott ignoring the very basic concept that public unions bargain against the tax payer.

Note... in all these threads.... not ONCE has Mott addressed the FACT that there are only two ways for benefits and salaries to be increased for public unions.....

1) Higher taxes

2) Cuts in other government departments

Instead, he whines and complains about 'rights' being taken away. The bullshit we see today is exactly why FDR didn't think collective bargaining should be allowed for government workers.

And the FACT you keep ignoring is Walker's agenda is not about cutting the deficit. His agenda is about busting unions, but ONLY the unions who didn't back him in the election. If unions were REALLY the root cause of the deficit, WHY would he exempt some public unions?

Governor Walker enacted a rarely used 'emergency' repair bill provision to ram through legislation. If teacher benefit costs were really the cause of the problem, and reducing the deficit was really a dire problem and the state had a $137 million deficit, the WHY did Walker immediately spend $140 million in handouts to special interests, including $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy?

Walker Concocts 'Scoop and Toss' Borrowing Scheme to Pay for $140 Million in Special Interest Spending

Wall Street Bond Holders Win; Wisconsin's Long-Term Debt Rises


Madison-- Republican Gov. Scott Walker plans to pay for $140 million in new special interest spending signed into law in January by extending the state's long term debt in a "scoop and toss" refinancing scheme that will cost untold tens of millions of dollars in additional debt for Wisconsin.

"Scott Walker railed non-stop against budget gimmicks as a candidate and now as governor he's put together a scheme that would make a pay-day lender blush," said Scot Ross, One Wisconsin Now Executive Director. "Gov. Walker created this problem by handing out $140 million in special interest spending to his corporate pals and he's going to make our children pay for it by taking loans the state was ready to pay off and borrow more money on them."

Walker is refusing to provide full accounting of how much in additional costs his "scoop and toss" scheme would cost taxpayers down the road. Since his inauguration in early January, Walker has approved $140 million in new special interest spending that includes:

* $25 million for an economic development fund for job creation that still has $73 million due to a lack of job creation. Walker is creating a $25 million hole which will not create or retain jobs. [Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 1/7/11]

* $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy. A study from the federal Governmental Accountability Office showed the average adjusted gross income of HSA participants was $139,000 and nearly half of HSA participants reported withdrawing nothing from their HSA, evidence that it is serving as a tax shelter for wealthy participants. [Government Accountability Office, 4/1/08; Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 1/11/11]

* $67 million for a tax shift plan, so ill-conceived that at-best the benefit provided to job creators would be less than a dollar a day per new job, and may be as little as 30 cents a day. [Associated Press, 1/28/01]

Walker made numerous statements before and after his election as governor criticizing borrowing schemes as a means of balancing the state's budget.

More
 
Yeah that 8 week vacation combined with school holidays 60k salary and 40k bene's is certainly a poor working mans burden~ those poor teachers.


Behold...class warfare...RightWing style.

Only someone as stupid as a braindead Rightie would try and make the claim that TEACHERS of all people are well off!
 
And the FACT you keep ignoring is Walker's agenda is not about cutting the deficit. His agenda is about busting unions, but ONLY the unions who didn't back him in the election. If unions were REALLY the root cause of the deficit, WHY would he exempt some public unions?

Where did I state unions were the cause of the deficit? To the contrary I stated the economic situation was not their fault. What I did state is that they do need to share in the economic downturn with the private sector. What I did state is the point that you and Mott and most of the left on this board continue to ignore.... the FACT that the union bargains AGAINST the taxpayer. You refuse to answer the simple point that the money either comes from the tax payer or OTHER government programs.

There is NO need for a public union. NONE.

Governor Walker enacted a rarely used 'emergency' repair bill provision to ram through legislation. If teacher benefit costs were really the cause of the problem, and reducing the deficit was really a dire problem and the state had a $137 million deficit, the WHY did Walker immediately spend $140 million in handouts to special interests, including $48 million for private health savings accounts, which primarily benefit the wealthy?

How many times do I have to debunk the above list of crap before you comprehend that your Dem masters lied to you?

1) HSA's benefit the healthy, not the wealthy

2) Trying to keep businesses IN STATE rather than watching them flee... just a hunch... but I bet that is a direct benefit to the unemployed and employed in WI.

3) You keep looking at the short term and pretend the long term doesn't exist.
 
They do charge what the market will bear. They, however, wish to circumvent that and press for more than we can afford by purchasing the politician they will negotiate with.

In fact, often private schools with far better records pay less than the public sector, and in every case they do not get the budget crushing benefits added to their salaries.


Then...in your words...


Link us up...
 
Rubbish, I believe that they have the ability to negotiate what the market will bear directly with the people who pay their salaries and should not be able to circumvent that by purchasing politicians to "negotiate" with. There is a reason that the vast majority of places do not allow public unions to negotiate directly with the politicians they bought, it is because when they can they break the budgets.

You have mentioned over and over that teachers have "purchased politicians" and have "bought politicians"...hows about you provide some DIRECT EVIDENCE to back those two particular statements...

Not some weak ass claim that just because these unions donated to their campaigns proves the politicians are "bought" by the unions...

We're talking some solid, DIRECT evidence.
 
Whatever you do...don't hold the kid's parents responsible for their lack of smarts.

Oh no...parents who don't take an active hand in their kids education aren't responsible in any way for their kids lack of education.

The "responsible conservatives" passing the blame once again!
 
The "responsible conservatives" passing the blame once again!

And NOT A ONE of the loud mouthed union bashers would even RESPOND to my comment.

NOPE...they've got it in for teachers and unions...the RightWing sees it as a way to retain their power come 2012 and they will continue to milk it for all the hatred they can squeeze out of it.
 
And NOT A ONE of the loud mouthed union bashers would even RESPOND to my comment.

NOPE...they've got it in for teachers and unions...the RightWing sees it as a way to retain their power come 2012 and they will continue to milk it for all the hatred they can squeeze out of it.

If you are referencing the comment she was quoting, that is because most of us already addressed that particular issue on other threads. It seemed as though your response was directed at tinfoil.

The public education system in our country needs a complete over haul. But without parental involvement in encouraging their kids and holding them accountable, then you are correct in your assertion that the teacher will not likely succeed with a child that cannot self-motivate.

That said, there is no valid reason for a public union.
 
Then...in your words...


Link us up...

There are so many factors to consider, like in private schools the class sizes are considerably smaller compared to public schools, plus private schools do not have the discipline problems of the public schools. Private schools often do not deal with mainstreaming the handicapped into their class rooms. Private schools are able to select their pupils, while public schools have to take all. In public schools 65% of the teachers deal with hunger, do private school teachers deal with it, probably, but on the same scale, probably not so much. The same with discipline problems, they occur, but not as often or as violent.

The teacher is blamed if a child flunks a grade, the child and the parent are not held responsible in the public school system as it was at one time. Parents expect teachers to babysit their problems.
 
Back
Top