Page 7 of 9

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:40 pm
by bundlesofvitals
With the residency requirement changes?

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:47 pm
by father of lies
Somehow I don't think massive funding cuts are going to do much to help the poverty-related educational problems and lead to increased opportunity...

MCTS is getting a SEVEN FUCKING MILLION DOLLAR CUT too. That's good.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 5:32 pm
by Crushing Bastards
Hickory shampoo...lots of it.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 10:54 pm
by Cascade Whore
John Jr. wrote:when globalist corporations are doing their very best to insure that they can work together behind close doors to better screw you on prices and wages, i would call it somewhat of a labor issue. for instance: when your job moves to china via mexico thanks to WTO policies and you are having to compete with people on the other side of the world for your labor, i find that to be a labor issue.

but yes, certainly more complex than a mere labor issue.

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxQQael1 ... ure=relmfu<

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:26 am
by Gookstorm
I think the worst part of all this is even if collapse and revolution happens and everything, half the people will be so delusional in this country to think that it was unions, gay marriage, abortion, minimum wages, "progressive" taxation, and government regulations are what brought the country to ruin via God's wrath or something and there'll be another fight basically not over something actually interesting like what happened with federalists vs. anti-federalists but basically Jesusland v. WTF while the rest of the world watches and throws away all their US stock and the Chinese come and say "we don't have religion, just the People's Republic! JOIN USSS!!!"

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:15 am
by Gookstorm
BTW, Michigan just passed something arguably worse than all of this. Let's see if it'll be copied to other financially troubled states!

http://www.dailytribune.com/articles/20 ... =fullstory
Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills

By Chad Selweski
Daily Tribune Staff Writer

A day after facing hundreds of rowdy, pro-union protesters that filled the state Capitol, the Senate voted on Wednesday to grant broad new powers to emergency managers who oversee financially struggling cities and schools, including the authority to void union contracts and remove elected officials.

The controversial bills are expected to head to Gov. Rick Snyder’s desk for signature shortly, after the House and Senate, both controlled by Republicans, work out some language differences.

The Senate passed the main bill in the package by a 26-12 party-line vote, drawing an immediate rebuke from union leaders across the state, who called it an assault on collective bargaining rights. In the Macomb County delegation, Republican Sens. Jack Brandenburg of Harrison Township and Tory Rocca of Sterling Heights supported the measure, while Democratic Sen. Steve Bieda of Warren was opposed.

Brandenburg said several urban areas of the state, especially Detroit, are in “bad shape” and will need a state-appointed emergency financial manager, or EMF, who can impose strong medicine.

“He has to have the backbone, he has to have the power, to null and void a contract,” Brandenburg said.

The senator also rejected claims by Democrats that the bill will destroy Michigan’s long history of local control by allowing the EMF to remove top administrators and elected officials, put millage increases on the ballot, lay off employees, slash services, and merge the city or school district with a neighboring government entity. Brandenburg said the EMFs will be deployed in communities that need “financial martial law.”

“Local control? I’ll tell you what, I think that in a lot of these places there is no control,” he said.

Snyder, a Republican, called for a substantially revised emergency manager process in January, warning that the current law doesn’t allow the state to act pro-actively, providing early intervention long before a city or school district faces financial collapse. In recent weeks, the governor has said that removing officials or altering or deleting contracts is a last resort.

In addition, an EMF can only be put in place if several preliminary steps to shore up a community’s finances fail.

An EMF would be appointed by the governor – in conjunction with the state school superintendent in the case of failing school districts. The Legislature could remove an EMF that was viewed as incompetent or overbearing.

Bieda said he’s disturbed that the Legislature is willing to put so much power in one person’s hands, someone who is not from the community and not elected by the people.

““I am very concerned for the powers this legislation would transfer to an emergency manager. Removing elected officials and overturning local ordinances shows no respect for the will or the rights of the voters. This draconian measure gives authority to an individual with no responsibility to the citizens of the community,” Bieda said in a statement.

Rocca could not be reached for comment.

The bills were approved after the Senate dealt with 29 amendments, mostly attempts by Democrats to soften the measure.

An amendment to the main bill that would have limited an EMF’s salary to the governor’s annual pay rate -- currently about $159,000 -- failed under unusual circumstances. Senators tied on a 19-19 vote, and Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Calley broke the tie with a "no" vote, drawing some boos from protesters in the Senate gallery. One protester shouted "shame on you" after Calley's vote.

The atmosphere at the Senate was much calmer than on Tuesday, when hundreds of people angered by the bills’ content crowded into the Capitol rotunda and chanted loud enough to be heard in the Senate chambers, where the proposals were being discussed before a restless crowd in the gallery.

Only Pontiac, Benton Harbor, Ecorse and the Detroit Public Schools have state-appointed emergency financial managers in place. But many more communities and schools might soon fall under the jurisdiction of the revised law. The state is training dozens of people with a background in municipal finance to certify them as a qualified EMF.

At the same time that municipalities and school districts are facing a dramatic decline in property tax revenues, state budget cuts have added to their woes and many experts say the additional deep cuts proposed by Snyder might push dozens of local governments and school districts over the edge.

Snyder has said that the state can no longer afford the level of financial assistance provided in the past, and he advised that officials at the local level must chop employee wages and benefits which are no longer affordable.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 11:48 am
by father of lies
Gookstorm wrote:I think the worst part of all this is even if collapse and revolution happens and everything, half the people will be so delusional in this country to think that it was unions, gay marriage, abortion, minimum wages, "progressive" taxation, and government regulations are what brought the country to ruin via God's wrath or something and there'll be another fight basically not over something actually interesting like what happened with federalists vs. anti-federalists but basically Jesusland v. WTF while the rest of the world watches and throws away all their US stock and the Chinese come and say "we don't have religion, just the People's Republic! JOIN USSS!!!"
For the love of fuck can we please split this sprawling mass into a few different countries...

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:58 pm
by Hypnagogia
Part of a column from Ron Judd from The Seattle Times:

Speaking Of The Howling Winds Of Change: Raise your hand if you're hoping all these people around the globe risking their lives for Western-style democracy don't have access to television feeds from the statehouse in Madison, Wis.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:34 pm
by father of lies
The senate democrats are back, but they're in contempt of the senate even though that rule doesn't apply to what they did.

So they can't vote.

Just fuckin' kill em all.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:43 pm
by John Jr.
how hard could it possibly be to get your lynch on? i mean just have one of you hold 'em by the necktie while the other pushes them out the window.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:01 pm
by father of lies
Image

No violence please.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:54 pm
by John Jr.
ginsberg was a boy rapist and they were mere tools of the re-imagining of the western conciousness into a better, more self-centered consumer who is afraid to throw off his chains for fear that they might accidentally hurt someone who didn't get out of the way of them when they landed.

but yeah, dont get cointelpro'd.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:17 am
by father of lies
Boy rape is an acceptable byproduct.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 5:55 am
by father of lies
You know, except for Howl, I don't really care for anything he's ever done. Seemed like an interesting creepy old man though.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:10 am
by Geeheeb
Is the budget defect 2.2 billion there? And this bill package only saves 150 million per year over two years?

How about recalling the 151 soldiers in Afghanistan that are from Wisconsin? According to the calculator at costofwar.com, the occupation costs WI $1,700,000,000.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:23 am
by caldwell.the.great
Geeheeb wrote:Is the budget defect 2.2 billion there? And this bill package only saves 150 million per year over two years?

How about recalling the 151 soldiers in Afghanistan that are from Wisconsin? According to the calculator at costofwar.com, the occupation costs WI $1,700,000,000.
Huh?
I see 6 billion here.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 8:53 am
by Geeheeb
budget deficit of 6bn?

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:14 am
by neckbeard
1 million bux per soldier per year

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:46 am
by father of lies
The budget repair bill is to shore up the CURRENT budget. It's only 150million or whatever short, so there is'nt a need for a repair bill. The deficit for the NEXT two year budget is 3.6billion last I heard, but that one isn't done yet.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:30 pm
by caldwell.the.great
Geeheeb wrote:budget deficit of 6bn?
I meant what it cost WI for the war

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:32 pm
by Geeheeb
caldwell.the.great wrote:
Geeheeb wrote:budget deficit of 6bn?
I meant what it cost WI for the war
Its just for fiscal year 2011: http://costofwar.com/en/tradeoffs/state ... tradeoff/0

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 3:58 pm
by John Jr.
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/23/bur ... od-stamps/

Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes

All around the country, right-wing legislators are asking middle class Americans to pay for budget deficits caused mainly by a recession caused by Wall Street; they are attacking workers’ collective bargaining rights, which has provoked a huge Main Street Movement to fight back.

Now, a group of House Republicans is launching a new stealth attack against union workers. GOP Reps. Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX) have introduced H.R. 1135, which states that it is designed to “provide information on total spending on means-tested welfare programs, to provide additional work requirements, and to provide an overall spending limit on means-tested welfare programs.”

Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer:

Image

The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”

Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.

With a record 42 million Americans on food stamps during these poor economic times, it appears that the right is simply looking for more ways to hurt working class Americans.
Update Believe it or not, there are already a whole host of sanctions against strikers in the current Food Stamp program -- the section quoted is actually part of a 1981 Reagan era law. Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) has introduced a bill to do away with these restrictions. A 1988 Supreme Court case reversed lower court decisions that ruled these sanctions unconstitutional.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:43 pm
by faggotmachine
Gookstorm wrote:I think the worst part of all this is even if collapse and revolution happens and everything, half the people will be so delusional in this country to think that it was unions, gay marriage, abortion, minimum wages, "progressive" taxation, and government regulations are what brought the country to ruin via God's wrath or something and there'll be another fight basically not over something actually interesting like what happened with federalists vs. anti-federalists but basically Jesusland v. WTF while the rest of the world watches and throws away all their US stock and the Chinese come and say "we don't have religion, just the People's Republic! JOIN USSS!!!"
Totally. People are so disillusioned, that giving them the chance to choose for themselves would be disastrous, thats a scarrrry thought.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:59 pm
by Cascade Whore
The American work force will eventually become so devalued that they will build Behringer city II in the United States and all the unemployed will be able to get jobs twisting tuning pegs for 9 hours straight to see how they feel.

Re: Wiisconsin "Well, you'll work hard with a gun in your ba

Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:19 pm
by Hypnagogia
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/t ... in_america
U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, far more than real hourly wages for both private-sector and state/local government workers, which grew 12% in the same period. Real hourly compensation grew a bit more (20.5% for state/local workers and 17.9% for private-sector workers) but still lagged far behind productivity growth.
SPOILERSPOILER_SHOW
Recent debates about whether public- or private-sector workers earn more have obscured a larger truth: all workers have suffered from decades of stagnating wages despite large gains in productivity. The current public discussion illogically pits state and local government employees against private workers, when both groups have failed to sufficiently benefit from the economic fruits of their labors. This paper examines trends in the compensation of public (state and local government) and private-sector employees relative to the growth of productivity over the past two decades.

This paper finds:

• U.S. productivity grew by 62.5% from 1989 to 2010, far more than real hourly wages for both private-sector and state/local government workers, which grew 12% in the same period. Real hourly compensation grew a bit more (20.5% for state/local workers and 17.9% for private-sector workers) but still lagged far behind productivity growth.

• Wage stagnation has hit high school–educated workers harder than college graduates, although both groups have suffered—and a bit more so in the public sector. For example, from 1989 to 2010, real wages for high school-educated workers in the private sector grew by just 4.8%, compared with 2.6% in state government. During the same period, real wages for college graduates in the private sector grew 19.4%, compared with 9.5% in state government.

• The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.

• The fading momentum of the 1990s recovery failed to propel real wage gains for college graduates employed by private-sector firms or states from 2002 to 2010, despite productivity growth of 20.2% over the same period.

These data underscore that there is a bigger story than public versus private compensation and a more penetrating set of questions to ask than who has more than whom. The ability of the economy to produce more goods and services has not translated into greater compensation for either group of workers. Why has pay fared so poorly overall? Why did the richest 1% of Americans receive 56% of all the income growth between 1989 and 2007, before the recession began (compared with 16% going to the bottom 90% of households)? Why are corporate profits 22% above their pre-recession level while total corporate sector employees’ compensation (reflecting lower employment and meager pay increases) is 3% below pre-recession levels? The answers lie in an economy that is designed to work for the well off and not to produce good jobs and improved living standards.1

Essentially, economic policy has not supported good jobs over the last 30 years or so. Rather, the focus has been on policies that were thought to make consumers better off through lower prices: deregulation of industries, privatization of public services, the weakening of labor standards including the minimum wage, erosion of the social safety net, expanding globalization, and the move toward fewer and weaker unions. These policies have served to erode the bargaining power of most workers, widen wage inequality, and deplete access to good jobs. In the last 10 years even workers with a college degree have failed to see any real wage growth.