^ I think you’re missing out on a little bit of history.
Taxpayer money was used to bail out corporate bankers. There was an uproar over this but in the end they were defended and allowed to keep their money with no strings attached (in fact there was a major push-back when Dems tried to recoup that money in the first part of 2009).
So that is what the context here is.
Regardless, a union “boss” does not make 185times the average worker. A corporate ‘fat cat” does.
Okay, I can see your reasoning. That wasn’t what i was taking from the toon, but I guess I could see that. Kind of a reach for a point in terms of years back to something federal to compare to something state and has nothing to do with the other (non sequitur). But okay.
I more often see a twist on the Union debate where in the Left adds private business unions into the argument to support their side, especially with the massive anti-business rhetoric coming from the left. That is much more where I saw Nick reaching to. But that too is a non-sequitur as the private and public unions are completely separate.
So I get where you are going Jade, I still don’t think that’s where Nick was going. But if I’m wrong, then so be it. Only Nick could correct me on this one I’m thinking.
DjG, I think you are being purposely obtuse. Nothing on the Collective Bargaining side says “State”. The imbalance is obviously Management vs Workers. State or Federal makes no difference. The news is currently about collective bargaining rights of State employees, but this could just as well be WalMart as Wisconsin.
” Kind of a reach for a point in terms of years back to something federal to compare to something state and has nothing to do with the other (non sequitur)”
$140 million in tax breaks are being given out by Governor Walker to Corporations. At the same time he is telling teachers and some state union workers that they have to give up benefits and the ability to bargain for their work environment. Considering the State is facing a budget shortfall, how can he give away money to corporations and only demanding concessions from state workers?
Better?
^^ I said nothing of altruism. I’m talking about fiscal responsibility.
“Tax breaks to coprporationms mean YOU get to keep more of YOUR money due to lower prices.”
You’re assuming that tax breaks go directly into the reduction of prices and not directly into profits.
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/02/cpi%202011-01-thumb-550x200-42807.png
http://socialsecuritypotluckdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cpi-w-07-10-thru-01-11.jpg?w=472&h=463
Consider these graphs, and consider other graphs showing profit margins for companies over the past couple years vs. employees. Corporations are not interested in reducing their costs to consumers, this much is evident in the price of gasoline – even when the price of a barrel of oil drops, the price of gas itself doesn’t, and even when the price of oil rises, technically the price of gas shouldn’t automatically increase since that gas was refined/purchased at the lower cost, but the increase reflects in the price immediately. You are assuming there is corporate altruism, there is not. Seriously, I do not understand how one can talk about capitalism and not expect that corporations are going to be capitalistic, which is they’re going to take the hand-outs and continue to funnel production to where labor is cheapest: overseas.
Unions may be bad, but they’re no worse than executives, and news flash: plenty of executive salaries and compensation are directly funded by taxpayers. Yet what happened when banks were called out? “Oh we shouldn’t hurt bankers, a few bad apples shouldn’t spoil the bunch.”
On the opposite side of the ledger, the budget reduced revenue by some $140 million through a variety of tax cuts, including ones aimed at businesses and individuals with Health Savings Accounts.
Motivemagus about 13 years ago
Elegantly done, Nick.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
Would that be the union leader on the other side I’m thinking?
Because gov’t union’s boss is the people… not a corporate fat cat.
Poor Nick… rhetoric got you shook…
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
^ I think you’re missing out on a little bit of history.
Taxpayer money was used to bail out corporate bankers. There was an uproar over this but in the end they were defended and allowed to keep their money with no strings attached (in fact there was a major push-back when Dems tried to recoup that money in the first part of 2009).
So that is what the context here is.
Regardless, a union “boss” does not make 185times the average worker. A corporate ‘fat cat” does.
DjGuardian about 13 years ago
Okay, I can see your reasoning. That wasn’t what i was taking from the toon, but I guess I could see that. Kind of a reach for a point in terms of years back to something federal to compare to something state and has nothing to do with the other (non sequitur). But okay.
I more often see a twist on the Union debate where in the Left adds private business unions into the argument to support their side, especially with the massive anti-business rhetoric coming from the left. That is much more where I saw Nick reaching to. But that too is a non-sequitur as the private and public unions are completely separate.
So I get where you are going Jade, I still don’t think that’s where Nick was going. But if I’m wrong, then so be it. Only Nick could correct me on this one I’m thinking.
Bluejayz about 13 years ago
DjG, I think you are being purposely obtuse. Nothing on the Collective Bargaining side says “State”. The imbalance is obviously Management vs Workers. State or Federal makes no difference. The news is currently about collective bargaining rights of State employees, but this could just as well be WalMart as Wisconsin.
alcors3 about 13 years ago
How does one get to be a corporate fat cat? To become a union boss you just have to be a tough talking gangster.
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
” Kind of a reach for a point in terms of years back to something federal to compare to something state and has nothing to do with the other (non sequitur)”
$140 million in tax breaks are being given out by Governor Walker to Corporations. At the same time he is telling teachers and some state union workers that they have to give up benefits and the ability to bargain for their work environment. Considering the State is facing a budget shortfall, how can he give away money to corporations and only demanding concessions from state workers? Better?Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
^^ I said nothing of altruism. I’m talking about fiscal responsibility.
“Tax breaks to coprporationms mean YOU get to keep more of YOUR money due to lower prices.”
You’re assuming that tax breaks go directly into the reduction of prices and not directly into profits. http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/02/cpi%202011-01-thumb-550x200-42807.png http://socialsecuritypotluckdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/cpi-w-07-10-thru-01-11.jpg?w=472&h=463 Consider these graphs, and consider other graphs showing profit margins for companies over the past couple years vs. employees. Corporations are not interested in reducing their costs to consumers, this much is evident in the price of gasoline – even when the price of a barrel of oil drops, the price of gas itself doesn’t, and even when the price of oil rises, technically the price of gas shouldn’t automatically increase since that gas was refined/purchased at the lower cost, but the increase reflects in the price immediately. You are assuming there is corporate altruism, there is not. Seriously, I do not understand how one can talk about capitalism and not expect that corporations are going to be capitalistic, which is they’re going to take the hand-outs and continue to funnel production to where labor is cheapest: overseas.Unions may be bad, but they’re no worse than executives, and news flash: plenty of executive salaries and compensation are directly funded by taxpayers. Yet what happened when banks were called out? “Oh we shouldn’t hurt bankers, a few bad apples shouldn’t spoil the bunch.”
Jaedabee Premium Member about 13 years ago
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/03/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsin-broke/
On the opposite side of the ledger, the budget reduced revenue by some $140 million through a variety of tax cuts, including ones aimed at businesses and individuals with Health Savings Accounts.