Former Wisconsin Attorney Gen: Gov. Walker Violated Ethics, Election and Labor Laws

Topspin said:
freak is right, politicians will get together and make an assumption on a not realistic rate of return which lowers the expense/amount needed to fund. They don't frequently get together to lower the return assumptions and thus increase funding requirement. Hence the problem.
Click to expand...
I agree but, as I stated, that's not the fault of the workers who negotiated those contractual agreements. That is the fault of the politicians who contractually agreed to make those fundings.

If I offer you a contract as a financial advisor for $100,000 a year for 5 years. I can't cancel that contract or pay you $50,000 a year after 2 years because I was unrealistic about the rate of return I received.
 
LOL, not being in the wrong has never been something that could stop the little guy from getting fucked over. Please see the same thing happening on SS.
 
cawacko said:
Ok, let's take a specific example. In California in 1999 our Governor boosted the the required annual return of public employee unions pensions to some 8%. The market was so hot at the time people didn't blink much at it. As the market turned it obviously was a huge issue. But you say I shouldn't blame the Governor for agreeing to that deal. Considering he's the highest ranking official in the state who do I blame? The President? Congress? Did they force our Governor to sign that deal?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that at all. You should blame the Governor for agreeing to that deal and you should hold that Governor accountable but that doesn't change the fact that a legal and binding contract was made with workers with the full faith and credit of that State and that State now has a legal and moral obligation to make those payments even though it was the Governor who fucked up and miscalculated that return on investment.

This is not the fault of the workers who negotiated these pensions. It was an agreed upon and contractual part of their compensation. If they performed the agreed upoon work, then they have contractually EARNED that compensation.

Like I said, try making that kind of argument is a private sector business deal and see how far it will take you.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No, I didn't say that at all. You should blame the Governor for agreeing to that deal and you should hold that Governor accountable but that doesn't change the fact that a legal and binding contract was made with workers with the full faith and credit of that State and that State now has a legal and moral obligation to make those payments even though it was the Governor who fucked up and miscalculated that return on investment.

This is not the fault of the workers who negotiated these pensions. It was an agreed upon and contractual part of their compensation. If they performed the agreed upoon work, then they have contractually EARNED that compensation.

Like I said, try making that kind of argument is a private sector business deal and see how far it will take you.
Click to expand...

Yes you did say that. I never blamed the workers I blamed the politicians (who are still government workers) who agree to these deals without caring about the long-term funding of the program because all they care about are the short-term benefits they receive. If the Governor is suppose to represent the tax payer and is out making these kind of deals who has the tax payers backs?
 
cawacko said:
Yes you did say that. I never blamed the workers I blamed the politicians (who are still government workers) who agree to these deals without caring about the long-term funding of the program because all they care about are the short-term benefits they receive. If the Governor is suppose to represent the tax payer and is out making these kind of deals who has the tax payers backs?
Click to expand...

Please show me exactly where I said that you shouldn't hold the politicians accountable?
 
Topspin said:
favorite quote from the best war movie ever


"Rich been fucking over the poor forever, always have always will"

Platoon, shoveling shit scene where whitebread get's indroduced to the herb
Click to expand...

Yup....to me politics is mostly about fighting for your pound of flesh. All the other shit, like wedge issues, is to distract idiots so you can take away their pound of flesh. lol
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I agree but, as I stated, that's not the fault of the workers who negotiated those contractual agreements. That is the fault of the politicians who contractually agreed to make those fundings.

If I offer you a contract as a financial advisor for $100,000 a year for 5 years. I can't cancel that contract or pay you $50,000 a year after 2 years because I was unrealistic about the rate of return I received.
Click to expand...

I agree.... but there is nothing to say that the contract cannot be renegotiated. hence the requests for contributions from the employees to their own health care and pension plans.

The funds are still going to be there (supposedly). It is the HOW they are funded that will change. The reason they want bene's off the table is because of the example Cawacko just presented. Politicians and public unions agree to bene's that DO NOT WORK in the long run. They are fiscally irresponsible and economically unsustainable. Yet politicians and public unions do it time and time again..... at the expense of the current or future tax payer.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Also... while I the government may have actually believed they could attain those lofty numbers... take your loan situation to its fruition.

You borrow $100k from the bank with the full intent of paying it back. But you lose your job and now cannot make the payment. The bank has three options....

1) restructure the note, this will have a negative impact on the banks bottom line, but maybe the best option long term

2) go after you for repayment.... if you are insolvent and thus have nothing to pay back, this typically isn't the best option

3) bitch and moan about how unfair life is
 
Superfreak said:
I agree.... but there is nothing to say that the contract cannot be renegotiated. hence the requests for contributions from the employees to their own health care and pension plans.

The funds are still going to be there (supposedly). It is the HOW they are funded that will change. The reason they want bene's off the table is because of the example Cawacko just presented. Politicians and public unions agree to bene's that DO NOT WORK in the long run. They are fiscally irresponsible and economically unsustainable. Yet politicians and public unions do it time and time again..... at the expense of the current or future tax payer.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

Also... while I the government may have actually believed they could attain those lofty numbers... take your loan situation to its fruition.

You borrow $100k from the bank with the full intent of paying it back. But you lose your job and now cannot make the payment. The bank has three options....

1) restructure the note, this will have a negative impact on the banks bottom line, but maybe the best option long term

2) go after you for repayment.... if you are insolvent and thus have nothing to pay back, this typically isn't the best option

3) bitch and moan about how unfair life is
Click to expand...
Well isn't that the voting publics fault too for not holding the polticians feet to the fire and voting their asses out when they do that?


Renegotiating is certainly an option. One that the Governor of Wisconsin does not appear to be predisposed to do.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well isn't that the voting publics fault too for not holding the polticians feet to the fire and voting their asses out when they do that?


Renegotiating is certainly an option. One that the Governor of Wisconsin does not appear to be predisposed to do.
Click to expand...

To a degree yes. It is the publics responsibility to hold elected officials accountable.

But how often are details provided to the public on issues like this in terms they can understand? I would guess and say rarely.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Well isn't that the voting publics fault too for not holding the polticians feet to the fire and voting their asses out when they do that?


Renegotiating is certainly an option. One that the Governor of Wisconsin does not appear to be predisposed to do.
Click to expand...

also... as for Walker... he is looking at the long term picture. He sees that simply getting concessions today won't solve the long term problem.

Bene's should not be negotiated by collective bargaining in the case of public unions. Otherwise we just end up right back where we are today.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Though I certainly don't agree with the radical nature of your proposal you do have a point. It's rediculous that a professional person earning $300,000/year is in the same tax braket (35%) as Bill Gates. This is nuts! By simply reforming our tax structure to a new top marginal bracket of something like 38 to 40% for those making over $750,000/year with modest spending cuts, and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan fixing the budget deficit would be fairly easy to do and we would still have historically low top marginal tax rates for the wealthy.

This notion by Republicans of fixing the economy on the backs of working people will back fire on them and will only radicalize the people against them. They should study their history. I hear Repelicans talking about sharing the sacrifice. In reality they want us to make the sacrifices so that they don't have to share the wealth.
Click to expand...

Radical? No sir it is not. Since when is having a way to pay for something radical? It is not radical to raise taxes to cover spending. It IS radical to borrow money from foreign countries to cover spending and adding compounding interest that is piling up. Radical is ignorant statements like VP Cheney made that "Reagan showed us deficits don't matter" to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill when O'Neill was against Bush's second round of tax cuts.

FDR increased taxes on the wealthy to pay for revenue shortfalls caused by the Great Depression and he increased them again to pay for WWII.

What IS not only radical, but unethical and immoral is to give the opulent a tax break and take it out of the hide of middle class schoolteachers, nurses, EMT's and snowplow drivers.

Saturday, September 22, 2007
War Costing $720 Million Each Day
Washington Post


saupload_ordinctaxrates1.jpg
 
Superfreak said:
also... as for Walker... he is looking at the long term picture. He sees that simply getting concessions today won't solve the long term problem.

Bene's should not be negotiated by collective bargaining in the case of public unions. Otherwise we just end up right back where we are today.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right...
 
Superfreak said:
yes... it IS right.

If you don't solve the problem today for the long term, the next group of politicians in will just do what others did in the past. Promise future benefits that they won't have to be around for.
Click to expand...

It appears his solutions are causing more problems than solving them, he blew it with the phoney phone call. Have you talked to him, does he feel stupid? He obviously didn't learn anything from Sarah and was just too eager to be Koch's star governor! He may have been a good guy, but this sure makes him look bad and not that bright!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top