What's new
By:

Vitriolic Rhetoric in Wisconsin

Paying subsidies to oil companies is a PR move by politicians. They are ostensibly to offset costs so they can keep the price of gas low. Whether the offset in costs is the reason or that they are using oil to hold america hostage is debatable. In turn we get cheaper gas at the pump, the politicians look like heroes to the average Joe for helping him get lower gas prices and the oil companies and politicians all line their pockets.

And don't kid yourself, the oil lobby is absolutely NOT exclusive to the republican party. They spread the wealth around.
 
The Thriller said:
The hyperbole from the right is downright scary in these times.

What legislation has the union influenced in Wisconsin, that has largely benefited workers and hurt the state in the last 10 years? I want at least 10 examples. It's too easy to blame the union on everything. I want specific examples of how the "union" has unfairly bent over the state to get what they unjustly wanted.

The hate towards teachers. So much of it is being puked from AM radio and fox. Unbelievable! In Utah especially, the union is being blamed for everything. If the teacher's union is so strong, you'd think they could get more than 30k per year and 35 students per classroom for their teachers.

The myth that people on welfare/food stamps/some form of government assistance are a bunch of lazy asses who work up one morning and decided to "make a living" on government assistance. Most of them, don't want to be there. In fact, most of them, are suffering on the crumbs that government assistance is. I have yet to see anyone build a home on the east side and drive a sports car off of their welfare check. I seriously wonder if most critics of welfare/poor people know that one most show evidence every month that they're actively seeking new employment or else lose their check.

The myth that SS is somehow bankrupting our country. That it's being used as a retirement. Seriously? Once again, the checks received aren't anything to be proud of. And very few people don't just screw up and not plan for retirement. Most do, but if Repubs deregulate everything so that wall street can take gambles and lose everyone's money....

with all the talk about unions ruining our states, why aren't we focusing on the real reason why so many states are facing tough financial times? The Great Recession. And what caused the recession? It wasn't the unions folks. What has been done to prevent the meltdown of our financial system that occurred 2 years ago from happening again? Of course, the rich and those in charge of foxnews and AM radio don't want to focus on that. They prefer the middle class make war with themselves. And when wall street melts down again? The middle class will bail them out again. But who cares? As long as the rich continue to redistribute wealth and get wealthier, that's all that matters.

One last thought... Why are we focusing so much on cutting domestic programs which benefit our own people while we're ******** trillions of dollars away in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why can't Europe and Asia defend themselves? And why are we investing billions into Haiti, Israel, and S. Korea? Why is EXXON, which is having record profits, still given government subsidies? Aren't they supposed to be used to subsidize companies that cannot survive on their own?
Click to expand...

You should start your own Republicans are to blame for everything thread if you want to talk about anything other than what is going on in Wisconsin.
 
Millsapa said:
You should start your own Republicans are to blame for everything thread if you want to talk about anything other than what is going on in Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Or we could just address these issues.

Or you could start by actually answering questions instead of creating a new thread every 10 minutes.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Paying subsidies to oil companies is a PR move by politicians. They are ostensibly to offset costs so they can keep the price of gas low. Whether the offset in costs is the reason or that they are using oil to hold america hostage is debatable. In turn we get cheaper gas at the pump, the politicians look like heroes to the average Joe for helping him get lower gas prices and the oil companies and politicians all line their pockets.

And don't kid yourself, the oil lobby is absolutely NOT exclusive to the republican party. They spread the wealth around.
Click to expand...

Why and how do we get cheaper gas by giving out government subsidizes?

Why are government subsidizes being used to, as you said, "offset costs"(how much are the costs anyway?) when record profits are being made?

Here's a wild concept, instead of the CEO giving himself billions more in profits (using government subsidies), why doesn't he invest billions more in offsetting costs, creating jobs, and growing his company? If anything, eliminating them might give them less of the lazy *** mentality (what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "handouts" to Americans make them lazy asses. Then why aren't handouts to companies not considered counterproductive too? Gotta love the double standard the right has. Handouts to people=evil. Handouts to corporation=good. Why? Because the people in charge of propaganda are rich and say so).

Government subsidizes were meant to aid industries/companies that couldn't survive on their own. EXXON, by smashing records in profits even during this recession can certainly survive on its own without receiving billions in handouts further weighing the wallets of those CEOs down even more.

As for your claim that both parties are in bed with the oil companies, I don't buy that. Which party is constantly advocating the DRILL BABY DRILL philosophy and which one is advocating the GOING GREEN philosophy?

It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand. Repubs from the beginning of time have been for big industries and banks. They were the party of the North. What used to be railroad giants are now oil companies. The same monopoly, price gouging, shenanigans are being played here folks. Just under a different name....
 
The Thriller said:
Why and how do we get cheaper gas by giving out government subsidizes?

Why are government subsidizes being used to, as you said, "offset costs"(how much are the costs anyway?) when record profits are being made?

Here's a wild concept, instead of the CEO giving himself billions more in profits (using government subsidies), why doesn't he invest billions more in offsetting costs, creating jobs, and growing his company? If anything, eliminating them might give them less of the lazy *** mentality (what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If "handouts" to Americans make them lazy asses. Then why aren't handouts to companies not considered counterproductive too? Gotta love the double standard the right has. Handouts to people=evil. Handouts to corporation=good. Why? Because the people in charge of propaganda are rich and say so).

Government subsidizes were meant to aid industries/companies that couldn't survive on their own. EXXON, by smashing records in profits even during this recession can certainly survive on its own without receiving billions in handouts further weighing the wallets of those CEOs down even more.

As for your claim that both parties are in bed with the oil companies, I don't buy that. Which party is constantly advocating the DRILL BABY DRILL philosophy and which one is advocating the GOING GREEN philosophy?

It's really not that difficult of a concept to understand. Repubs from the beginning of time have been for big industries and banks. They were the party of the North. What used to be railroad giants are now oil companies. The same monopoly, price gouging, shenanigans are being played here folks. Just under a different name....
Click to expand...

So what in my post appears to be in support of oil company subsidies? I was denigrating the politicians that use that as a political chip. Notice I also point out that largely we see politicians and the oil companies lining their pockets with money. You do realize that is in support of the first part of your position, right?

As for your claim that oil money only taints republicans, if you seriously think that any lobby out there banks entirely on swaying just one side of the debate then wow are you naive. Of course there are deeper-ingrained support for various special interest groups on either side of the debate (gay-rights and unions tend to be supported by dems, oil and big business by repubs), but any lobbyist worth his weight in crap will spread money around to anyone he can to sway the political leanings. If they can get even just a handful of the other side to vote their way it may sway policy in their favor, and for them it is money well-spent. You seriously think the oil lobby will risk a democratic president and possible democratic congress changing things in ways that may hurt them? You better believe they are slipping those guys some bills under the table as well, just to maintain the status quo until a more favorable political landscape emerges.
 
https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/08/60minutes/main4707770.shtml

This report is a must read for anyone who cares about gas prices, government, and our economy.

It's funny, no right winger that I've ever talked to is aware of this report. When reflecting upon the crazy gas prices of this period of time, they oft argue that Democrats caused it by not drilling in ANWR. And that China and India's growing economy caused it. Which would justify mass expansion of drilling in America.

Quite only, supply and demand... and subsidies... don't count for **** when speculators really control the prices...

Remember in 07-08 prices skyrocketed? Yeah... they shouldn't have if supply and demanded mattered... In fact, they should have dropped...

If anyone had any doubts, they were dispelled a few days after that hearing when the price of oil jumped $25 in a single day. That day was Sept. 22.

Michael Greenberger, a former director of trading for the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that oversees oil futures, says there were no supply disruptions that could have justified such a big increase.

"Did China and India suddenly have gigantic needs for new oil products in a single day? No. Everybody agrees supply-demand could not drive the price up $25, which was a record increase in the price of oil. The price of oil went from somewhere in the 60s to $147 in less than a year. And we were being told, on that run-up, 'It's supply-demand, supply-demand, supply-demand,'" Greenberger said.

A recent report out of MIT, analyzing world oil production and consumption, also concluded that the basic fundamentals of supply and demand could not have been responsible for last year's run-up in oil prices. And Michael Masters says the U.S. Department of Energy's own statistics show that if the markets had been working properly, the price of oil should have been going down, not up.
Click to expand...

The same BS is happening again... Libya is having some unrest and now prices are feared to go up to $5 a gallon here. Of course, there's always an excuse given. Some unrest in the middle east... Bigfoot attacking some obscure pump in Montana which causes a national panic...

Next year will be because of some disease.

The year after will be because of some comet.

The year after will be because of unrest in Iran....

And we'll continue to buy these stories without actually investigating them or cracking down on speculation. Kinda like we all just assume wall street and the banks learned their lessons from 2 years ago.... LOL...

But that's ok. Americans will ignore the real issues because tv and radio tell them so. Instead of cracking down on the real threats to our society, we'll tear apart our fellow class who belong to unions and who teach kids and who are struggling just to make ends meet. While Gordon Gekko is laughing at our expense repeating his famous quote:

Money itself isn't lost or made, it's simply transferred from one perception to another.
Click to expand...
 
LogGrad98 said:
So what in my post appears to be in support of oil company subsidies? I was denigrating the politicians that use that as a political chip. Notice I also point out that largely we see politicians and the oil companies lining their pockets with money. You do realize that is in support of the first part of your position, right? Seriously, try reading, and holstering your paranoia.

As for your claim that oil money only taints republicans, if you seriously think that any lobby out there banks entirely on swaying just one side of the debate then wow are you naive. Of course there are deeper-ingrained support for various special interest groups on either side of the debate (gay-rights and unions tend to be supported by dems, oil and big business by repubs), but any lobbyist worth his weight in crap will spread money around to anyone he can to sway the political leanings. If they can get even just a handful of the other side to vote their way it may sway policy in their favor, and for them it is money well-spent. You seriously think the oil lobby will risk a democratic president and possible democratic congress changing things in ways that may hurt them? You better believe they are slipping those guys some bills under the table as well, just to maintain the status quo until a more favorable political landscape emerges.
Click to expand...

I agree. Good post.
 
The Thriller said:
Quite only, supply and demand... and subsidies... don't count for **** when speculators really control the prices...

Remember in 07-08 prices skyrocketed? Yeah... they shouldn't have if supply and demanded mattered... In fact, they should have dropped...
Click to expand...

You know what is really a bitch is when these here dirty *** some bitching speculatin falutin some damn gun ******** cause them there futures contracts to go down to dad gummed far an we is payin less at them thar pumps an not more cause we's payin less ya see? Ya know, like they is doin right here an now down thar with that West Texis Intermedicit shtuff, ya know? That there Texas sweet is lower than that thar heavy sour crapolah. Dirty damn dumb speculatin falutin bitches. I tell you what.

Get a grip. It works both ways. Besides, I really don't give a damn if oil goes to $5 or $6 or $7 per barrel. Last time that happened we saw demand destruction that brought a decade of cheap gas. Give me the high prices and let innovation put the death grip back on Saudi. Why do you think Saudi is pumping more? They don't like price spikes because they fully realize the consequences.
 
The Thriller said:
Or we could just address these issues.

Or you could start by actually answering questions instead of creating a new thread every 10 minutes.
Click to expand...

The best thing would be if you could stop dropping liberal turds all over my thread.

I'll stick to the examples of the destructive power of public employee unions you demanded:

Here are 2 articles about what they have done to California:

Pension Time Bomb
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091002726.html

California's $500-billion pension time bomb

The state of California's real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That's the finding from a study released Monday (last April) by Stanford University's public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

How did we get here? The answer is simple: For decades -- and without voter consent -- state leaders have been issuing billions of dollars of debt in the form of unfunded pension and healthcare promises, then gaming accounting rules in order to understate the size of those promises.

Because legislators are unwilling to raise issues that might offend that constituency(public employee unions), they have effectively turned the peroration of Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on its head: Instead of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we have become a government of its employees, by its employees and for its employees.
Click to expand...

https://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/06/opinion/la-oe-crane6-2010apr06

What happened in Indiana when the new Governor eliminated collective bargaining power of the PEU?

The public employees got to keep $1K they didn't have to pay to unions. The good empoyees got raises while the bad ones got fired, rather than having to treat the good and bad workers the same.

Like California the problem in Wisconsin is the pensions and benefits:

Average MPS Teacher Compensation Tops $100k/year

https://maciverinstitute.com/2010/03/average-mps-teacher-compensation-tops-100kyear/

The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.
Click to expand...

Like Walker said, he could either fire a bunch of public employees or the workers can chip in to pay a small portion of it, like those in the private sector have to.

"For decades now, the Democrats have had a good gig buying the votes of government workers with outrageous salaries, benefits and work rules -- and then sticking productive earners with the bill. But, now, we're out of money, no matter how long Wisconsin Democrats hide out in Illinois."
 
VINYLONE said:
There are complete morans on both sides of the issue.
Click to expand...

I know, but isn't it hilarious when he says that they tell him what to make and when to make it? I have been laughing about that all day. Uh, dude, you work in a restaurant where, go with me on this, people are going to come in randomly and order what they want. I mean, the nerve of the evil restaurant owner expecting this poor picked on guy to make what people order... Personally, I think they should form a union, and make the owner pay them $50,000/year plus bonuses and insurance. Also, they should push for the right to not have to make dishes at the will of the owner.
 
I love how the far right cries about having to pay for people's health insurance, and their social security, and their food stamps, etc. And when we have people trying to earn an honest living with their own medical insurance, retirement, and living wage, the far right screams about that too.

Someone needs to tell that moron in Wisconsin that he can either let people earn it on their own, pay their way for them, or deal with it when they have no other options.
 
SaltyDawg said:
I love how the far right cries about having to pay for people's health insurance, and their social security, and their food stamps, etc. And when we have people trying to earn an honest living with their own medical insurance, retirement, and living wage, the far right screams about that too.

Someone needs to tell that moron in Wisconsin that he can either let people earn it on their own, pay their way for them, or deal with it when they have no other options.
Click to expand...

You do realize that taxes pay for their medical insurance, retirement, and "living wage." It comes down to a couple of question: Do public employees deserve better benefits and pensions than the tax payers who are footing their bill? Is it better for the governor to lay workers off or let them all keep their job but each sacrifice a little?
 
Millsapa said:
You do realize that taxes pay for their medical insurance, retirement, and "living wage." It comes down to a couple of question: Do public employees deserve better benefits and pensions than the tax payers who are footing their bill? Is it better for the governor to lay workers off or let them all keep their job but each sacrifice a little?
Click to expand...
1: They work for their money and benefits. This is not a government handout.

2: They have already agreed to all of the pay and benefit reductions. The sticking point is their right to collective bargain in the future. The amount of their pay and benefits hurting the budget (or being more than the taxpayers') is not an issue if they have already agreed to the governor's demanded cuts.

3: These are not tweakers who dropped out of high school and flip burgers at mickey dees between their meth binges to satisfy the employment requirement of their parole. These are teachers, firemen, police officers, etc. Educated people, people who put their lives on the line for us, people who are tasked with helping our children be all they can be... These people deserve our respect and we should not be trying to take their rights and freedoms away.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.
 
SaltyDawg said:
1: They work for their money and benefits. This is not a government handout.

2: They have already agreed to all of the pay and benefit reductions. The sticking point is their right to collective bargain in the future. The amount of their pay and benefits hurting the budget (or being more than the taxpayers') is not an issue if they have already agreed to the governor's demanded cuts.

3: These are not tweakers who dropped out of high school and flip burgers at mickey dees between their meth binges to satisfy the employment requirement of their parole. These are teachers, firemen, police officers, etc. Educated people, people who put their lives on the line for us, people who are tasked with helping our children be all they can be... These people deserve our respect and we should not be trying to take their rights and freedoms away.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.
Click to expand...

I listened to an interview with a former head of a union a few days ago. In his view, "they" meaning the moneyed honchos somewhere somehow, are just out busting the whole concept of unions.

The fundamental problem of unionized public or government employees is that there is no fundamental restriction imposed by free market competition in the "industry". Where we have a serious problem in federal government with the bureaucracy that has taken a life of its own and is resistant to all efforts by elected represpentatives or the President to have any impact on their way of doing "business", the people have lost their fundamental right to govern themselves. In the case of state and local government, the same unsavory aspect is becoming more apparent. The role of the government unions is aggravating this issue.

Millsapa is right that government "workers" should not earn substantially better pay and comp than private sector workers doing comprobable work, and there definitely is a need to restore the ideal of "public service" in the ranks of government officials/workers. What the real issue should be is whether we want to support an elite cadre of overlords with essentially unlimited power to interfere with our lives in every possible way.

Unions should have the sense, and basic loyalty to everyday folks, not to defend the elitist overlord class. And yes, I include public school teachers and policemen as having that attitude all too often.
 
babe said:
I listened to an interview with a former head of a union a few days ago. In his view, "they" meaning the moneyed honchos somewhere somehow, are just out busting the whole concept of unions.

The fundamental problem of unionized public or government employees is that there is no fundamental restriction imposed by free market competition in the "industry". Where we have a serious problem in federal government with the bureaucracy that has taken a life of its own and is resistant to all efforts by elected represpentatives or the President to have any impact on their way of doing "business", the people have lost their fundamental right to govern themselves. In the case of state and local government, the same unsavory aspect is becoming more apparent. The role of the government unions is aggravating this issue.

Millsapa is right that government "workers" should not earn substantially better pay and comp than private sector workers doing comprobable work, and there definitely is a need to restore the ideal of "public service" in the ranks of government officials/workers. What the real issue should be is whether we want to support an elite cadre of overlords with essentially unlimited power to interfere with our lives in every possible way.

Unions should have the sense, and basic loyalty to everyday folks, not to defend the elitist overlord class. And yes, I include public school teachers and policemen as having that attitude all too often.
Click to expand...
Well these people have already agreed to the pay and benefit reductions. So the amount of money they make and quality of their benefits is not an issue. It's just a smokescreen.


Sent from my HTC Evo using Tapatalk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top