Wisconsin winner others to follow …

• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1193280 wrote:So you were just being devils advocate with your prison privatization remarks then?
  
  And saving time/"management effort" would be a benefit. But then you add in the questionable savings increases and various other problems inherent with privatization that I've discussed (one being giving an incentive to attempting to increase our already unacceptably high levels of incarceration). Just because the government doesn't necessarily have to be the one directly providing something like prison services doesn't mean that it automatically is a good idea to privatize. There are problems with that as well.

  No not at all. I was expressing my opinion that I find it perfectly acceptable to consider and implement privatization as a solution to providing prisons for the people.
  
  I'll try again. I have never stated it was a good idea. Nor have I stated it was a bad idea to privatize prisons. I am willing to realize the costs should they even be higher for such privatization. If we elect an individual that would like appointed personnel and staff to focus on other areas with time and effort and find such time by outsourcing prisons, I am understanding of such a decision.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1193298 wrote:No not at all. I was expressing my opinion that I find it perfectly acceptable to consider and implement privatization as a solution to providing prisons for the people.
  
  I'll try again. I have never stated it was a good idea. Nor have I stated it was a bad idea to privatize prisons. I am willing to realize the costs should they even be higher for such privatization. If we elect an individual that would like appointed personnel and staff to focus on other areas with time and effort and find such time by outsourcing prisons, I am understanding of such a decision.

  So you're cool with whatever an elected official does then. That's what that sounds like to me.
  
  It's acceptable to consider it sure. But if there are not benefits to the switch or if new costs (either monetary or otherwise) outweigh the savings then we should not implement such a policy regardless of whether an elected official wants to deal with it or not.
  
  And you seem to be suggesting that our elected officials are actually spending time on the day to day operations of our correctional institutions which I find highly unlikely. The state hires employees to do that.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1193303 wrote:So you're cool with whatever an elected official does then. That's what that sounds like to me.
  
  It's acceptable to consider it sure. But if there are not benefits to the switch or if new costs (either monetary or otherwise) outweigh the savings then we should not implement such a policy regardless of whether an elected official wants to deal with it or not.
  
  And you seem to be suggesting that our elected officials are actually spending time on the day to day operations of our correctional institutions which I find highly unlikely. The state hires employees to do that.

  ...cool with whatever an elected official does? No. With this yes. Wasn't that the whole point? Expressing the opinion on this issue?
  
  Again, I disagree that there needs to be a direct benefit to the decision being appropriate. Not all decisions are based on direct, immediate benefit. I thought I made that point early on also.
  
  Sorry if I haven't been more clear.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1193310 wrote:...cool with whatever an elected official does? No. With this yes. Wasn't that the whole point? Expressing the opinion on this issue?
  
  Again, I disagree that there needs to be a direct benefit to the decision being appropriate. Not all decisions are based on direct, immediate benefit. I thought I made that point early on also.
  
  Sorry if I haven't been more clear.

  I did not say direct or immediate benefit either. I have said I'm not merely talking about monetary costs as well. But in any decision whether governmental or in a corporation you're going to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether it's a wise choice of action.
  
  All I'm saying is that should we find the costs either direct monetary or otherwise of switching to private prisons outweigh the gains then we should not privatize that activity. Seems simple but it goes against the current ideology of many conservatives (or what we call conservatives here) which seems to be that privatization is inherently better.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1193286 wrote: But more directly, how are Super PACs a good thing?

  Because we need strong opposition to the powerful public unions and such. And because without it, politicians would just continue buying votes, and the unions are the largest voting bloc to deliver bang-for-the-buck. I would argue what happened in WI is a good thing, and Super PAC's certainly had a role. Also Super Pac money behind the Tea Party, which while far from perfect they are still about the only ones in Congress really willing to take on the deficit. So long as unions want to play politics - in addition to their powerful collective bargaining - I'm going to support tax payers and businesses banding together to advance the interests of many non-union voters.
  
  We disagree on earmarks. The lobbyists are just bidding for the money as opposed to a "lottery", but the politicians are diverting those funds to their local constituencies for the express purpose of buying votes. Removing the lobbyist doesn't remove the incentive and I really don't see why that would be debateable.
• I Wear Pants

  gut;1193317 wrote:Because we need strong opposition to the powerful public unions and such. And because without it, politicians would just continue buying votes.
  
  We disagree on earmarks. The lobbyists are just bidding for the money as opposed to a "lottery", but the politicians are diverting those funds to their local constituencies for the express purpose of buying votes. Removing the lobbyist doesn't remove the incentive and I really don't see why that would be debateable.

  Super PACs are the literal buying of politicians. How do you see that as a good thing?
  
  You are suggesting fighting union lobbying with corporate lobbying. Terrible plan in my opinion.
• Con_Alma

  I am aware that you didn't say direct or immediate benefit. I did.
  
  It isn't necessary for my benefit to restate your point. I understand it. I truly do.
  
  Privatisation doesn't have to bewhat you consdier "better" for it to be the right thing. I don't want nor need governement to directly perform services others are capable of providing for us.
• I Wear Pants

  Con_Alma;1193320 wrote:I am aware that you didn't say direct or immediate benefit. I did.
  
  It isn't necessary for my benefit to restate your point. I understand it. I truly do.
  
  Privatisation doesn't have to bewhat you consdier "better" for it to be the right thing. I don't want nor need governement to directly perform services others are capable of providing for us.

  This sounds like you are accepting of either less quality or more expensive services for the sake of them being privately operated rather than government operated which I find to be confusing.
  
  Let me put it this way: If it's hypothetically more costly (monetary or otherwise) and/or less quality why on earth would we want a service (prisons in this case) to be privatized?
• isadore

  queencitybuckeye;1193252 wrote:You do understand that a single anecdotal example doesn't negate my point, correct?

  Sergeant Eric J. Autobee, a Colorado correctional officer, who was beaten to death by a man serving a life sentence for killing his 11-week-old daughterhttp://www.apbweb.com/officer-down-news-menu-26/63-corrections-casualties.html and again and again
  as your claim of chances of recidivism with true life sentences being statisticaly zero.
• Con_Alma

  I Wear Pants;1193331 wrote:This sounds like you are accepting of either less quality or more expensive services for the sake of them being privately operated rather than government operated which I find to be confusing.
  
  Let me put it this way: If it's hypothetically more costly (monetary or otherwise) and/or less quality why on earth would we want a service (prisons in this case) to be privatized?

  I don't know that we do?
  
  I personally am not opposed to the privatization of prisons. I don't want nor need government to continue being large employers and providing services. I would rather they simply govern.
• gut

  I Wear Pants;1193319 wrote:Super PACs are the literal buying of politicians. How do you see that as a good thing?
  
  You are suggesting fighting union lobbying with corporate lobbying. Terrible plan in my opinion.

  Super PAC's are more than one entity, but with a few wealthy individuals it's not the wholesale buying and damage done by the union lobby.
  
  Terrible plan or not, eliminating the corporate lobby without also eliminating the union lobby would be disastrous. Do that and we might as well write blank checks to the union. At least the corporate lobby creates jobs and, you know, pays people.
• isadore

  gut;1193543 wrote:Super PAC's are more than one entity, but with a few wealthy individuals it's not the wholesale buying and damage done by the union lobby.
  
  Terrible plan or not, eliminating the corporate lobby without also eliminating the union lobby would be disastrous. Do that and we might as well write blank checks to the union. At least the corporate lobby creates jobs and, you know, pays people.

  without unions corporations exploited and destroyed the lives of their workers. that is what you get without the counterweight of unions.
• gut

  isadore;1195393 wrote:without unions corporations exploited and destroyed the lives of their workers. that is what you get without the counterweight of unions.

  That may have been true 30 years ago, 50 years ago. But business practices evolve.
  
  And you're ignoring the very large and powerful public unions which hold the taxpayer hostage.
• isadore

  gut;1195420 wrote:That may have been true 30 years ago, 50 years ago. But business practices evolve.
  
  And you're ignoring the very large and powerful public unions which hold the taxpayer hostage.

  corporations are trying to rollback the protections that have been won by unions and working people. As the voters of Ohio decided government workers deserve the right to collectively bargain.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1195518 wrote:corporations are trying to rollback the protections that have been won by unions and working people. As the voters of Ohio decided government workers deserve the right to collectively bargain.

  Those who voted for/with public sector unions in Ohio were the 400,000+ in public sector unions in Ohio, plus their spouses and parents/children. Thus they automatically had the lock on the numbers necessary to stave off the reform measure. Everyone else, the other 1.7 million voters, almost unanimously voted FOR the reforms. And there you have the problem: those feeding at the public trough and their direct/indirect beneficiaries, outnumbered the rest of the voters. That spells bankruptcy at some point.
• gut

  isadore;1195518 wrote:corporations are trying to rollback the protections that have been won by unions and working people. As the voters of Ohio decided government workers deserve the right to collectively bargain.

  Has nothing to do with safety or working hours. Has to do with uncompetitive wages which unions won in good times at "gunpoint". Actually, the private sector unions have made concessions in light of the economy. The public unions, however, have refused to make concessions and resorting to the legal system and politics to fight it.
  
  Your words ring pretty hollow when the "unions" you're protecting here aren't being exploited by any corporation but are, in fact, exploiting the taxpayer who has seen their wages and benefits cut.
  
  And WTF is a "working person"? Are you trying to say that managers and business owners don't work?
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1195565 wrote:Those who voted for/with public sector unions in Ohio were the 400,000+ in public sector unions in Ohio, plus their spouses and parents/children. Thus they automatically had the lock on the numbers necessary to stave off the reform measure. Everyone else, the other 1.7 million voters, almost unanimously voted FOR the reforms. And there you have the problem: those feeding at the public trough and their direct/indirect beneficiaries, outnumbered the rest of the voters. That spells bankruptcy at some point.

  lol by far the large majority of voters supported the right of public workers to collectivey bargaining.
• isadore

  gut;1195579 wrote:Has nothing to do with safety or working hours. Has to do with uncompetitive wages which unions won in good times at "gunpoint". Actually, the private sector unions have made concessions in light of the economy. The public unions, however, have refused to make concessions and resorting to the legal system and politics to fight it.
  
  Your words ring pretty hollow when the "unions" you're protecting here aren't being exploited by any corporation but are, in fact, exploiting the taxpayer who has seen their wages and benefits cut.
  
  And WTF is a "working person"? Are you trying to say that managers and business owners don't work?

  Corporations have made major efforts to attack overtime, right to organize, on work safety, minimum wage.
  what part of the world do you iive in, public employees unions have made major concessions to help at time of economic problems.
• Con_Alma

  The unions can stand strong. The jobs will continue to flow elsewhere.
  
  There are larger consumer market opportunity in other countries...there are also larger employee pools.
• gut

  isadore;1195682 wrote:Corporations have made major efforts to attack overtime, right to organize, on work safety, minimum wage.
  what part of the world do you iive in, public employees unions have made major concessions to help at time of economic problems.

  Have they? Then why are the states staring at a combined $3T deficit to fund public pensions? Incomes and tax revenues from the average joe are flat or down, yet public workers keep going up. Not sure where you see "major concessions" that haven't been forced on them (and fought tooth-and-nail, like this recall effort in Wisconsin).
  
  And, oddly enough, when workers are given the CHOICE to organize or not, they are increasingly choosing not to. Factories are being built and relocated down south where - surprise - people choose not to organize.
  
  It probably would also shock to you learn that companies can't simply choose not to pay overtime - you're either exempt or not, union really have little to do with it. Companies not wanting to work OT because it often throws them into unprofitable territory isn't exactly greed, either.
  
  And very few full-time factory jobs pay less than $10 an hour. Minimum wage affects mostly highschool kids and part-time jobs. Work-safety? Puh-lease. OSHA is all over that, and lost-time injuries are a huge concern for companies because, you know, it's pretty costly. You appear to be reading from the union playbook cerca 1970.
• isadore

  gut;1195739 wrote:Have they? Then why are the states staring at a combined $3T deficit to fund public pensions? Incomes and tax revenues from the average joe are flat or down, yet public workers keep going up. Not sure where you see "major concessions" that haven't been forced on them (and fought tooth-and-nail, like this recall effort in Wisconsin).
  
  And, oddly enough, when workers are given the CHOICE to organize or not, they are increasingly choosing not to. Factories are being built and relocated down south where - surprise - people choose not to organize.
  
  It probably would also shock to you learn that companies can't simply choose not to pay overtime - you're either exempt or not, union really have little to do with it. Companies not wanting to work OT because it often throws them into unprofitable territory isn't exactly greed, either.
  
  And very few full-time factory jobs pay less than $10 an hour. Minimum wage affects mostly highschool kids and part-time jobs. Work-safety? Puh-lease. OSHA is all over that, and lost-time injuries are a huge concern for companies because, you know, it's pretty costly. You appear to be reading from the union playbook cerca 1970.

  A lot of those average joes whose pay is going down are public employees.
  Tax revenue are down because of tax cuts to the rich. “Fought tooth and nail” against concessions.
  Gosh a ruddies here in Ohio, public workers have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. Across the state public employees have agreed to wage freezes without strikes.
  During the Bush administration there a major effort to overthrow overtime that was defeated by Union efforts.
  Corporate creature like Alec work to undermine worker’s rights, undermine workmen’s comp.
  http://alecexposed.org/w/images/8/8b/1Q5-Workers_Compensation_Medical_Records_Disclosure_Act_Exposed.pdf
  To cut or eliminate minimum wage
  http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/3/34/1E10-Starting_%28Minimum%29_Wage_Repeal_Act_Exposed.pdf
  As part of a general effort to lower wages.