Its about time public unions get broken up. They are killing local economies with their bloated benefits, salaries, and ridiculous pensions that everyone gets stuck paying for. Alls you ever hear from them is "tax the rich and the mean, evil companies". Yeah right. Come up with something realistic, would ya? Everywhere there is a union, there is a financial crisis - auto industry, airline industry, schools, etc, etc. Wonder if there is any correlation there? Ya think?
The State accounting office had predicted a $120 million surplus in Wisconsin for this year. Then the GOVERNOR cut taxes by $140 million and created this artificial budget crisis. Then ironically blamed it on the Unions.
This is Union busting, pure and simple. The Unions are the biggest opposition to the Republican. It is pure breaking of the competition that made America great.
Yep this is exactly what I thought it was going to be, more "liberal" fear mongering. Sad you can't come up with a better solution and instead just blast the other side with rhetoric and hyperbole.
They didnt agree to the cuts, one union official said "they would consider the changes" fact is, the union made it clear they would sooner see 1/3 of their members unemployed than see a penny less in their union official's check, he said thousands from being unemployed, holy shit paying a whole 5.8 towards your pension, yep that's nuts, while the rest of us pay around 70 while picking up their 94% not covered by them...
Then let the corporations buy their own products and the American people build their own.
The rust belt is the end result of Republican's setting up deal with foreign campaign contributing companies. Communist China owns the Republicans and Tea Party.
Scott Walker and Paul Ryan are a couple owned by the Koch brothers.
I'm for the GOP. Give millionaires back exactly what they paid - with reasonable interest and not one cent more when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, VA, any government assistance. I watched a lady that inherited $2 million during her last 6 months of cancer. Medicare paid all her medical bills and she drew a SS check off her husband. She never worked or paid into the system. She died with $2 million dollars in the bank and with America in more debt than any time in history.
I love how the poor victimized tax payers are ALWAYS teabags. Democrats don't pay taxes, evidently. And not only is Americans fighting for American rights unAmerican- but CEOs absolutely are NOT unpatriotic for heading off shore and DITCHING AMERICA!
Libs seem to believe that corporations exist mainly to provide jobs and benefits and that making money for their shareholders and providing competitive products/services are secondary concerns. Of course, reality says it's the exact opposite. Libs also believe that if you raise the corp. tax rate that the corps will fork it over from their profits rather than laying off people, not hiring, or moving away. America's rust belt shows how well this thinking has paid-off.
@mkeogh76 - And GOPricks keep thinking that "labor" is there to service the rich
The corporate tax rate is a total farce as the US tax code is a sieve with more loopholes than anything. You do know that the US tax code rewards laying people off in the US and gives them a tax break for hiring overseas
Yet another Tea Buggerer who is fact deficient and lied to way too much
Wow, rich people that are elected into office give themselves and other rich people tax breaks, who saww that coming? But every election the same two parties get elected, people complain about the Democrats when they do a bad job then Republicans get elected, the REpublicans do worse and the Democrats get elected. Nothing is gonna get better when you have two corporate owned parties runnin the scene.
Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was against the idea of collective bargaining for government employees. All it takes is a little bit of thinking and the reason should become clear. . . The Union gets the person elected who then uses the treasury of the people to pay the union who gets them re-elected. Rinse an Repeat... Thanks Progressive Socialists.. Get a real job where you have to do something!!
The Young Turds are MORONS, especially that douche. However, Ana Kasparian does suck a good dick. Plus she swallows. Not that "Jank" or cockboy there would know.
When Bush gave tax cuts he said it would create jobs, here we are 10 years later with probably around 20% unemployment and they (Republicans) want to continue these Voodoo economics as Bush Sr once described them in a debate. They are trying to bring China wages back to America it seems. Sometimes I wonder if Fox News uses subliminal brain washing techniques because its the piss poor mid-Americans in trailer parks that will still vote Republican?? Crazy Days we live in
The Republican Party should get their selves a new mascot instead of the elephant because they have to much amnesia when it comes to what George W.Bush to this country.
@sonofatiger Maybe the new Republican mascot could be a leech filled with blood? We could pop it and get our 3 Trillion dollars back from the wall street banks!
The GOP grandstanding taking place by the recently "elected" governors and representatives are reminiscent of the old Godfather's when asked for their raison detre...."God did not ask me to use reason, but to use the end of a gun"....
If collective bargaining is a right recognized by the U.S. than how come federal employees don't have this right? I am a Wisconsin tax payer were are my right from getting screwed by the public unions. Collective bargaining is not a natural right because it is given by the government, and can be morally taken away.
Did nothing wrong? They RAN AWAY...like cowards. Did nothing wrong my ass...they were elected for those positions too, you people say Fox twists things, every news station does, msnbc and CNN are more biased then fox news, but since 90% of media is liberal you people just can't see it. Also, governor walker is 43, if that's so young how old is the guy in this video? "all you have to do is graduate high school" yea, walker did that 25 years ago, way to attack his age by the way...fuckin idiot
@xXxDANMANxXx 100% of the truth is liberal/progressive. I'd say the truth is massively biased. Liberalism/progressivism is the basis of law/democracy itself, without which you would still have slavery/local dicatorships/mafia rule. But you keep on going, son.
@georgekostaras No ones giving anything to the rich, just because they take away union rights doesn't mean they're taking away their pay checks...you can't collectively bargain with tax payer dollars thats just wrong. And besides, teachers are forced to pay thousands to be in a union which they have no say in at all, they also get outrageous benefits as well. Oh lemme point out, they'll realize what all the rest of us have to do in order to have health insurance and other things like that.
@xXxDANMANxXx Yup, nobody gives the rich anything, yup. Except for their parents who they inherited their riches from in the first place. Governor Scott Fuckhead is working union busting, which is unconstitutional. Not to mention that Governor Cumstain is planning to sell state services in non-bidding sales to private interests. My friend, The Koch brothers and their ilk are the ones trying to kill the American dream.
@georgekostaras it's not unconstitutional, collective bargaining isn't even a real "right", stop all the hatred and sly remarks and rethink your logic
@xXxDANMANxXx Collective bargaining is a recognized human right by the United Nations, the Supreme Court of Canda and in the United States under the 1935 National Labour relations act which regulates employer employee relations. How's that for sly remarks? If you want Capitalism, just look to Tsarist Russia as a shining example of ignorance and serfdom.
@georgekostaras calling collective bargaining a right is beyond absurd. It's like saying haggling on the price of a car or house is a "human right". You only have a right to life, libery, and propery, and technically that's all just one right. Anything else is an abuse of the word.
@Houshalter Right, like child labour laws are also not a human right. Why should those little faggots be in school when they could be working in a factory, losing fingers in the gears and dying early. China has no bargaining rights, they live in a state of pure capitalism. Try working in one of their fucking factories for a day and see how long it is before you start singing the praise of Marx. Or one of the sweatshops in Thailand. Try that for size.
@georgekostaras Children are not adults that can consent to work or recieve the benefits of their own labor. So your argument goes "China has capitalism and China is poor, therefore capitalism causes poverty"? *Facepalm*. Really, I can't make this stuff up.
0:45 - wait, "billions of taxpayers in the state of wisconsin" ??? check your math, scotty, there are definitely not billions of people living in wisconsin. how this man ever got elected is beyond me.
yes they are taking their "first born child"....they do have rights to collectively bargain...enjoy your term Governor as you'll not be elected next term
Of course if you increase taxes, you can pay for anything.
Deficits are caused by the amount spent being greater than the revenue taken in. You can say the problem is too much spending, or too little taxing. BOTH ARE CORRECT.
Cutting spending increases the integrated, fluid and growthful market economy, raising taxes decreases that and instead increases the semi-static and disintegrated state economy (disintegrated meaning not having to earn more than what's spent).
A CEO (call him David Koch), a talk show host (call him Glenn Beck), & a talk show darling (call her Sarah Palin), are sitting at a table with a unionized public employee, & a teabagger. On the table there are 12 cookies. Koch reaches across, takes 11 cookies, gives 2 to Beck & 2 to Palin before getting up & leaving the restaurant (without paying his bill). Beck & Palin then look at the teabagger & say, "Watch out for that union guy, he’ll leave you with nothing but crumbs."
A producer/seller does not ever NEED to "guess" the price of what they're producing. They just put it on the market and price-adjust until it sells. They're on the front line.
The tax cuts for big businesses is probably the reason that three of the largest U.S. Companies are expanding into Wisconsin and could potentially create 22,000 jobs in Wisconsin. By the way, Collective Bargaining Power is NOT a right, it's just that...power!
@dantheleo What? A coalition of people getting together and agreeing not to work to get an employer to give fair wages. That's what a union is. And actually the Supreme Court's recent decision of Citizen's United affirms that right.
Making a billionaire pay a fairer share in taxes could emply THOUSANDS of middle class workers.
The billionaire doesn't care about the thousands of workers whose wages he claims for himself while the thousands of workers don't get to work, thus don't get to pay taxes from any wages.
YOU want to fight for the billionaire and his "right" to keep as much of his tax money to "invest" (aka stockpile in off shore accounts), that's the Republican way.
@theozone2005 You are missing the point entirely. First off, you are misinformed on the pensions, as are many others. The entire idea behind a pension is that the worker contributes part of their current wage, to be deferred to a later time. So the pension money is from their own salaries. What is your deal anyway? Are you getting paid by a right wing think tank or do you just hate teachers?
If they want their collective, cult or commune, then let them fund it themselves. America is a country more than ever built and maintained by self employed, under employed and temps. Unions need to get with the program. New York States pension budget for one year is 9 percent of the total US GDP. 109 billion. This is what states are dealing with. To all you mob chanting goofball circlejerks, get off my TV. Unions used to have a real purpose. Not in your case.
@treasurector Unions are one of the main reasons America had such a growing middle class and standard of living up until the 80's when Reagan started dismantling our country. For fuck's sake, the wealth disparity in this country is a lot like it was in 20s right before the great depression, and if you think that not having Unions are going to fix things you are flat out misinformed! If anything we need MORE unions and we need them now.
Someone with 10 billion dollars in earnings is just as happy with 9 billion. We shouldn't borrow from China to make fat cats explode from their wealth.
Someone who lost a 40k job due to corporate greed and now gets unemployment to barely survive will stimulate the economy MORE than someone who simply prefers CASH to yet another beach house in the Bahamas.
Tax the RICH a bit more, for Pete's sake! ANY budget shorfall can be "handled" by letting millionaires pay a fairer share in taxes!
@SynchroTotal no one makes that much money. Even if they did, assuming they produced something of equivelant value in exchange for it, I don't see anything justifiable about stealing some of it to give to someone who didn't do shit for anybody.
teachers producing DISMAL results in schools where BILLIONS disappear while every homeowner pays $1000s a year. A classroom is 30 chair-desks and a blackboard, and a good teacher. Govt owns the buildings. No rent. No insurance. BILLIONS. THEY STILL CANT TEACH. Blame Bush? No Money for Books? Where are last years books? Kids barely reading? but teachers are set for life, and angry, but they are protesting "for the kids sake" of course. Economy is in toilet, they are set for life, but want more.
@theozone2005 They are protesting because their uneducated Governor is trying to take away their right to collectively bargain. Set for life? Are you fucking serious? These people make next to nothing to provide a public service and are trying to protect that little that they do make. The son of a bitch created the budget shortfall by giving tax breaks to corporations just so that he could fuck with the union. The country is going to shit because of conservative fucking bullshit, not teachers.
@TheyCallHimTheTops "especially when you factor in the great vacation schedule and the comprehensive benefits packages that usually go along with teaching. In Wisconsin, teaching salaries averaged $52,644 in 2009-10, according to the National Education Association, with most school districts offering benefits that range from health insurance to retirement plans" In WI the teachers contribute ZERO to their pensions and salaries. ZERO. teacher-world com
@TheyCallHimTheTops Ooops. WI teachers contribute ZERO to pensions and healthcare. I know ZERO is very tough, especially in the summers when they have 3 months off to think about it.
The right to bargain? They already have PENSIONS and HEALTHCARE for LIFE, 3 months off a year, and enormous say over every aspect of job. What do they want to bargain more for? Limos service? In 2 years there is another election and they can give the collective bargaining rights BACK. American non union workers also have collective bargaining power regarding how much we pay govt workers, its called ELECTIONS.
Hi Gov. Scott Walker! You're going to call off your proposed bill. You're going to publicly state that you will not take away collective bargaining rights. Or... these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
@KiheiLawyer What? That's just stupid. Where'd you get that idea--Fox news, I bet. Unions are coalitions of people getting together to get decent working conditions and wages from their employers. Doesn't matter if the employer is the government or a private entity.
@bashia except all they end up doing is perpetuating the ridiculously expensive public education system we have now, even though it's completely failing and quality has only gone down.
@Houshalter education costs have gone up and quality down mostly because of the unfunded No Child Left Behind program, not because of teacher pay which is not even increasing at the rate of inflation. While Wall Street has caused this depression they have workers turning on each other rather than the banksters that ought to be in jail for stealing billions from our economy. Watch Inside Job or Client 9. Or go to Democracy Now and click on Matt Taibbi in the right hand column.
@bashia Even when the money goes directly to the schools, it generally doesn't do much, and they still cost far more then private education with lower quality.
@Houshalter It has nothing to do with money going directly to the schools, it has to do with increased costs due to the unfunded No Child Left Behind program that requires teachers spend too much time teaching to the test and not really teaching. The fact is this is not about the budget since the teachers have agreed to the cuts. It's about union busting. Unions brought ALL of us the weekend, 40 hour work week, overtime pay not to mention those extra benefits that some of us still have.
@Houshalter dear you need to go back and find out what life was like before the unions. The pioneers didn't travel thousands of miles through hazardous territory just because they were brave. They usually undertook that danger to escape horrendous lifestyles and working conditions with no hope of any opportunity. It was the unions that brought us what we now call the American dream.
@Houshalter we had to fight to get a 40 hour work week. Employers don't just willingly give overtime pay. Especially publicly traded businesses are all about profit. You can see that wages have decreased, people are losing benefits and are working increased hours since unions have been weakened by the continuous attack on them since Reagan. I'm not making an assumption at all. Really don't you know there's a class warfare going on and you're being duped?
@bashia your assuming that one party in a voluntary transaction arbitrarily has more power in price setting then the other party, the parties being the employer and employee, respectively. This is simply not the case as it is in any non-coercive exchange.The employers have to compete for labor just as much as the employees have to compete for wages. Even if this somehow wasn't the case, it still wouldn't justify all these regulations which have no mechanism to determine their costs and benefits.
@Houshalter in the last 40 some years there has been so much unemployment so that employers have the upper hand. Get rid of the high rates of unemployment and your argument might have some validity.
@bashia unemployment is caused by market wages falling below government enforced price floors. Price floors always lead to quantities of a perfectly good resource not being used because the price is artificially higher then the actual supply vs demand, so the market treats it like it is a scarcer resource then it actually is. This is called the minimum wage.
@Houshalter good theory except it doesn't work. In every country where the IMF has imposed these types of economic strategies, the ultra rich got richer and the rest got poorer. In fact in countries with privatized school systems approx. 40% of people are unable to obtain education. On the other hand, countries with a well regulated capitalist system combined with a strong social support system have the highest standard of living for all, not just some.
@bashia correlation does not imply causation. The only countries with private education left are in the third world. Europe has a better educational system better then the US and that's because parents can choose where they want to send their kids to school. Even though the government runs it, the mechanism of competetion keeps it in check.
And the first world "regulated capitalist system" is on the verge of collapse. That is not a success by any means.
@Houshalter again come on--our system is failed because of the criminal banking activity as a result of deregulation and refusal to enforce regulation. We've had trillions sucked out of our economy because of that. Also, those needless wars are sucking trillions more out. To blame it on regulation is RIDICULOUS. You know there are other reputed economists out there that agree with me--such as Joseph Stigletz, Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, Ravi Batra.
@Houshalter The US political system isn't based on central planning. It's based on representative democracy, with a smear of moneyed influence through campaign contributions.
@Houshalter No, government in the US is not based on central planning. It's based on congressional (representative) approval of resolutions/bills. Therefore, scrutiny is open to the American people entitled to vote, who elect the congressmen, and then further scrutiny by those congressmen themselves (who have disparate views, which ideally represent the disparate views out there in the public). The only thing that prevents proper scrutiny is money in politics. That'll go, by law, one day too.
@TheNavigateur only 10 - 20% of the population, which is mostly uneducated on the issues anyways, gets to decide which of several possible canidates which mostly support the same things and have no accountability whatsoever, will "represent" the rest of the population by taking their money and forcing them to do or not do whatever they want. If you think that is acceptable, you are way past help. How about we take it a step further and eliminate politics altogether, before it's to late?
@Houshalter Replace voter and representative scrutiny in politics by warlord/mafia rule? I don't think so. It's not "majority rule" anyway, congress holds DEBATES, where the most compelling argument can hold sway, even if it originates from a minority. That's the whole point of debates in congress, and not direct majority rule (like referendums on everything, for example).
@TheNavigateur no one is suggesting "warlord/mafia rule" that is what we have now. If you can't see how a society could possible exist without a ruling class telling everyone how to run their lives, that is fine with me. Stick with your government if you want. You do not have a right, however, to force me or anyone else that does not consent to it to be forced to fund it and obey it. Just let us opt-out! People deserve the right to make that decision themselves, you can't make it for them.
@Houshalter The point of democracy is to allow you to persuade others to change the laws i.e. provoke discussion. So if you don't like the laws, you're supposed to try and use reason.
Money hinders here, but it's a MUCH better system than where the BEST ARMED people require NO scrutiny to be able to use violent force against their neighbours! Yes you might be frustrated with others in our systems, but it's FAR better than the alternative!! Let's just improve our system to listen to more voices.
@TheNavigateur there is absolutly no evidence of that, in fact there is tons of evidence to the contrary. If our system was far better then any alternative, then people wouldn't have to be forced to fund it with half of their income.
There is no reason I should have to convince a majority of the population that I have rights. I already do, whether they agree or disagree is irrelevant.
@TheNavigateur the system that allows people to choose which system they want to live under directly is the best, since people are self-interested and will choose the most optimal system possible. You go your way, I'll go mine.
@Houshalter "self-interested" is where the problem of slavery and self-interested extortion (self-interested robbery) arises. If everyone was "self-interested", as you say, people would happily enslave as many people as they could.
Even if a small percentage were "self-interested", those enslavers would be the ones who end up with the most personal wealth.
@TheNavigateur no. An pure altruist is "self-interested". Every rational being has ends they seek to achieve or utilities to maximize. If they didn't, then there would be no rational reason for them to make any action whatsoever. Libertarianism is just about letting people chose where to spend their own resources to achieve their individual ends, as opposed to making them slaves to work for the interests of a few.
@Houshalter There's a huge difference between those who are purely-self-interested, who would happily enslave others purely for their own (and NOBODY else's) personal profit, and those who consider all other beings. The problem is how to deal with the potential enslavers (the first kind of people)? Libertarianism is insufficient to deal with, or address that. Well it's worse, it would totally allow that to happen, without any recourse for victims.
@TheNavigateur there's nothing about the current system that stops slavery if your going to say that as long as people want something they automatically are going to get it. Crime is prevented by people defending themselves. If a state was really necessary to defend our rights, people would pay for it voluntarily.
@Houshalter "Crime is prevented by people defending themselves". That is fundamentally false, as evidenced by the fact that a crime is when a person could NOT defend themself. If a person COULD defend themself, then of course a crime doesn't happen. So that's self-evidently false. And in the real world, crime happens against defenseless people.
People DEMAND taxes through the representative democratic system. What's your evidence they don't? e.g. Why don't they all vote for Ron Paul/tea party?
@Houshalter "Crime is prevented by people defending themselves". That is fundamentally false, as evidenced by the fact that a crime is when a person could NOT defend themself. If a person COULD prevent it, then of course a crime doesn't happen. So that's self-evidently false. And in the real world, crime occurs against those who can't stop it.
People DEMAND taxes through the representative democratic system. What's your evidence they don't? e.g. Why don't they all vote for Ron Paul/tea party?
@TheNavigateur Like most services, people usually don't do them all by themselves when it's sub-optimal. Some people may want to depend only on themselves or the people around them for defense, and that's fine for them, but most people want to pay police to protect them. The thing is, currently there is one monopoly police force, no one has a choice to leave, and they aren't accountable for shit.
There's no such thing as a market demand for theft. That makes no sense.
@Houshalter There is a demand for robbery via taxes, and this is clearly evidenced by the fact that people don't all just vote for Ron Paul, who is against all of it (which would ironically give well enough armed robbers free to rob anyway).
Why else is it that you think people don't just all vote for Tea Party candidates or Ron Paul? If it happens, then all mandatory taxes would disappear, so it IS an option via the democratic system! (maybe the last, but still).
@TheNavigateur if two people vote to rape the third, is that a market demand for rape that must be met? Your argument is absurd. Plus I seriously doubt an informed population from a stable stateless society would vote back a state if given the choice. It would be like people today voting back slavery if the 14th amendment were suddenly removed.
@Hous If two people make a voluntary exchange to pollute a third person's air (without laws against it)... that's a "market demand" too. Except that the democratic "demand" is not even as bad because it goes through the filter of congressional/parliamentary discussion, where the "third" person gets a face-to-face chance to reason their case against it, and if their reasoning is compelling enough, they get their way. So it's not "majority rule" like a direct (referendum-based) democracy would be.
@TheNavigateur anyways, this would be a good thing for everybody! If government truly is the optimal way, then you can keep it. But it will have to compete against the benefits offered by our system, or any other system anyone can think of. This will force it to make reforms to survive, which is what you want anyways.
@Houshalter Democracy ALLOWS a "no government" option e.g. Ron Paul would eliminate all mandatory taxes, and so would nearly all "Tea Party" candidates. Personally I think it would be a disaster for everybody except the most ruthless, well-armed purely-self-interested thugs. But if you can convince enough people, it would happen.
And theres plenty of money behind libertarianism too. All big money in politics tends towards libertarianism.
@TheNavigateur how about based on moneyed influence with a touch of representative democracy? In fact, because of the corporate media, 30% of our voting machines non-verifiable and controlled by corporations, gerrymandering, the two party system and the fact that increasingly legislators are dependent on big money donations to get elected--there ain't much representative democracy left.
@Houshalter What!? Most of the New Deal "big government" programs the right complains about were in place: Social Security, AFDC, SSI, Fair Labor Act, Securities & Exchange, etc. As far as social programs, our government is smaller today being consistently cut since Reagan. But it's bigger in regards to HOMELAND SECURITY and the MIC. It's really not how big the government is, it's who's controlling it and who it serves, and that's not us.
The tax breaks for businesses were for if they HIRE new people, which would bring MORE REVENUE into the state (because new employees would pay taxes) and these breaks were passed by both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS in the state Congress. You're whole "blame the tax cuts" rhetoric is false..
And JR does not work for the people of Wisconsin, nor is he being paid by tax payer money, so him leaving the state does not compare to the Senators DUCKING THEIR JOB.
I almost don't feel sympathy for these people, they voted the Republicans in, despite people like Cenk, me and many others telling our fellow Republican friends not to, they still vote for them(I guess hating minorities is more important than your own future, what utter fools)
I feel sorry for those who did indeed vote againts these rich loving corporate sellout politicians in WI.
Why do government workers even need a union? I dont see any conflict with "management" - which are the politicians. Politicians are only too happy to give government unions what they want in exchange for votes. Government employees are the most coddled, overpaid, spoiled and worthless "workers" in America.
Did you know State Workers can retire at 25 years and buy into 5 years and get a retirement of 90% of their pay!?.They start at 18 years old out of high school work til they are 43 and quit and still get 100.000.00 plus to do NOTHING!. Some retirees in California retire as Firemarshalls and get 187k in retirement per year! And they are COMPLAINING!? Sorry, but we as taxpayers are broke!, No mas, no more, tapped out. We are losing our jobs, our homes and value in our 401ks and they are whining!.
Every worker should have the FREEDOM to join a union if they choose but NO worker should be FORCED to join a union or be FORCED to pay dues or fees to a union just to obtain or keep a job. FORCED unionism is forced SLAVERY!
Forced Unionism relies on gov’t regulation for union power instead of selling the benefits of the union to worker who would be free to choose.
Forced unionism is bad for the union because politics change and so does the union’s ability to force membership.
@megagagnon1 What happened to state's rights and the rights of the individual? Isn't that the type of bullshit where those representatives owning a gun and shooting that state trooper would be justified by NRA standards?
@housetaboo The jobs market will recover. Until then, the govt. needs to fill the gap, even if those govt. jobs are anything better than stupid. That is all. But the tea party people want "smaller government" RIGHT NOW... = less jobs. Obama's scared of the tea party people and Republicans. Do you understand that? If he wasn't scared, there'd be much lower unemployment numbers during this (temporary) period.
@TheNavigateur With the Right To Work Law that is the death warrant for americas economy. Mexico will be better than the United States. Already in Right To Work Law states employees earn 10k to 15k less a year real great huh? That is not including unions. When the union contracts are up the company offers better pay then after a few months drops the pay and laughs at the employees. It is drty politics that eliminate the middle class. Welcome it is the 1930's all over again.
@TheNavigateur Lol we are called proggressives= progress wich Bush stopped because he put religion above science and progress. Sorry ass GOP screwed america everytime.
@TheNavigateur speculation caused the recession? Wow, you are more clueless then I thought. We're on the verge of the worst depression in history, and it has absolutely nothing to do with speculation. Hell, the more speculation the better, since people that can predict the crisis can invest in things that will be scarce or necessary during it.
You don't see how govt granting a monopoly to the banks to create as much money out of thin air--and then govt also covering the banks losses w/tax money--is a form of socialism-fascism? You're not very bright then, are you? If you think this is an example of free-market capitalism you're insane.
And your little "nopers" comment reveals you to be nothing more than a barbaric nazi...democracy is a sham--its usually about 20% (or less) of the populace which elects majorities.
@ashane77 The banks' special priveleges are because of corruption. "No democracy" wouldn't exactly solve that either. Only banning third-party speculation altogether would end recessions, since SPECULATION (leading to price instabilities) causes recessions.
The speculation is the harmful component of capitalism, the special priveleges given to speculators exacerbated it.
No, the banks special privilege is due to GOVT...GOVT granted banks the powers they have. This is a FACT. "Speculation" is a favorite word of socialists that they use to blame the problems THEY created on the private sector. Recessions/Depressions occur because of changes in the money supply, malinvestment caused by monetary policy, and price-fixing...both thanks to, you guessed it, GOVT meddling in the economy and granting monopoly powers to connected corporations/people.
@ashane77 Corruption between govt. and speculators, like I said. Desired by speculators, granted by govt. Corruption should be banned. And will, eventually, because the PEOPLE will demand it from successive administrations. Thank god there's democracy to make that possible, eh? Democracy ALREADY banned govt. officials from POCKETING money. Now all that's left is campaign donations. And that will come in the future, for exactly the same reasons, the pocketing money was banned.
Yes, democracy sure has produced great results, hasn't it? 20% of the populace electing a few 100 people to rule 300 million+ human beings is totally sane, rational, and moral!
VASTLY more people can vote now than 200 years ago, yet...we are FAR LESS FREE...and corruption is MORE rampant than ever...
@ashane77 Elections are totally representative of who majority of people would choose, and this is backed up by pre-election polls of ALL (not just likely) voters.
FACT: politicians win elections w/seldom more than 10-20% of the populace they allegedly represent.
Democracy is not freedom. Want proof? Next time you go out to eat w/friends, instead of you all ordering what you individually desire to eat, take a vote and make everyone eat what the biggest bloc of voters want.
To you, 10-20% electing a few politicians (who are usually TOTAL STRANGERS to those who vote for them and those t hey rule) to rule the other 80-90% makes sense.
@ashane77 I JUST TOLD YOU, that 10-20% IS REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE OTHER 80-90% WANTS, AND THE PROOF IS IN PRE-ELECTION POLLS OF ALL (NOT JUST "LIKELY" VOTERS).
You're saying that the 70 million (or so) who voted for Obama represent, not only their own desires, but the desires of the 60 million (or so) who voted for McCain, the desires of the million (or so) who voted 3rd Party, AND the desries of the 200 million (or so) who didn't (or couldn't) vote at all?
@ashane77 No I said the people who did vote is a fair representation of the people who didn't BOTHER to vote as well, and this is proven by the pre-election polls of all (not just likely) voters.
Try to comprehend, not just make something up that I did not say.
@ashane77 Your points about voting? That many who are FULLY ENTITLED TO VOTE don't BOTHER to vote, thus DELEGATING the choice to those who CARE? How is this problematic?
@TheNavigateur "didn't BOTHER"? Obviously the vast majority of people value having Obama as president less then the cost of voting, which is pretty small as it is. That cost is nothing compared to the massive taxes and violation of rights they would pay for doing so. And most people that did vote for him did so because they thought he was "the lesser of two evils" or his skin color or a specific policy, whatever, not because they approve of his entire policy.
@Houshalter "Polls are bullshit"... your argument for that is what? Why are you focusing on Obama... he has virtually no power except veto. Why not talk about congressional elections? Money in politics is the big destroyer of the system, none of the crap you just said.
@TheNavigateur WRONG! Those who vote have given their consent to the election process. Those that don't (a majority of the population by the way) have not and can not be affected by it.
@TheNavigateur no, I am here making my voice heard right now. I refuse to give my consent to the election process because it is immoral and does not work or accurately represent me in any meaningful way. If the half of people that do vote want government imposed on themselves, they can do so on a voluntary basis, but they have no justification to force it on the rest of us, nor could they without subsidizing the costs off to people that don't consent.
@Houshalter Those are "protest ballots" or spoiled ballots. Did you do that? If not, then you didn't make your voice heard AT ALL. And you chose not to.
@TheNavigateur your ignoring the point. In order the justify the initiation of force in a democracy, 51% of the population has to consent. Since only 20% of the population voted for Obama to represent them, and of those that did only a small fraction of them may completely agree with him, anything he does is not truly justifiable democratically at all. The same goes for all other elected leaders. They are no different then any other tyrrants in history that appeased a minority of the...
@ashane77 Bravo... and epic fail. You know you've lost a debate when your last point has NO logical points, and nothing to back up your point of view. Thanks for playing. Maybe you'll have the guts to try again in future.
To summarise: laws are derived by representative discussion, and that's why they exist. Your fantasy world represents NO point in history. So it's funny anyone would call you "conservative". You're actually a radical, deluded nut-case whose own plans would self-destroy.
@ashane77 A 3rd-party speculator is one who invests in something they don't have DIRECT operational control over, solely for profit.
i.e. trying to use economic phemonena to make money from doing nothing.
They collectively cause recessions BECAUSE speculative demand is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE when there are high volumes of such speculation, causing market fluctuations that OTHERWISE WOULDN'T EXIST, forcing businesses to make radical changes, inevitably causing high private-sector unemployment.
No to public unions, yes to private....it's the fat cats who run the private,remember.
linwooddeaton 5 months ago
The U.S government is run by children and fools.
yomamasapeach 6 months ago
President Reagan: “We must also insure that taxes due the government are collected. And that a fair share of the burden is borne by all.”
the1tigglet 7 months ago
Its about time public unions get broken up. They are killing local economies with their bloated benefits, salaries, and ridiculous pensions that everyone gets stuck paying for. Alls you ever hear from them is "tax the rich and the mean, evil companies". Yeah right. Come up with something realistic, would ya? Everywhere there is a union, there is a financial crisis - auto industry, airline industry, schools, etc, etc. Wonder if there is any correlation there? Ya think?
s2mikey 7 months ago
The State accounting office had predicted a $120 million surplus in Wisconsin for this year. Then the GOVERNOR cut taxes by $140 million and created this artificial budget crisis. Then ironically blamed it on the Unions.
This is Union busting, pure and simple. The Unions are the biggest opposition to the Republican. It is pure breaking of the competition that made America great.
I hope they throw his ass in jail.
blueboyblue 8 months ago 2
Yep this is exactly what I thought it was going to be, more "liberal" fear mongering. Sad you can't come up with a better solution and instead just blast the other side with rhetoric and hyperbole.
jamesonfire88 9 months ago
Comment removed
oodlesofosz 9 months ago
They didnt agree to the cuts, one union official said "they would consider the changes" fact is, the union made it clear they would sooner see 1/3 of their members unemployed than see a penny less in their union official's check, he said thousands from being unemployed, holy shit paying a whole 5.8 towards your pension, yep that's nuts, while the rest of us pay around 70 while picking up their 94% not covered by them...
ars62287 9 months ago
Then let the corporations buy their own products and the American people build their own.
The rust belt is the end result of Republican's setting up deal with foreign campaign contributing companies. Communist China owns the Republicans and Tea Party.
Scott Walker and Paul Ryan are a couple owned by the Koch brothers.
nightprwlr63 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm for the GOP. Give millionaires back exactly what they paid - with reasonable interest and not one cent more when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, VA, any government assistance. I watched a lady that inherited $2 million during her last 6 months of cancer. Medicare paid all her medical bills and she drew a SS check off her husband. She never worked or paid into the system. She died with $2 million dollars in the bank and with America in more debt than any time in history.
vechorik 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how the poor victimized tax payers are ALWAYS teabags. Democrats don't pay taxes, evidently. And not only is Americans fighting for American rights unAmerican- but CEOs absolutely are NOT unpatriotic for heading off shore and DITCHING AMERICA!
GrassValleyGreg 10 months ago
Libs seem to believe that corporations exist mainly to provide jobs and benefits and that making money for their shareholders and providing competitive products/services are secondary concerns. Of course, reality says it's the exact opposite. Libs also believe that if you raise the corp. tax rate that the corps will fork it over from their profits rather than laying off people, not hiring, or moving away. America's rust belt shows how well this thinking has paid-off.
mkeogh76 10 months ago
@mkeogh76 - And GOPricks keep thinking that "labor" is there to service the rich
The corporate tax rate is a total farce as the US tax code is a sieve with more loopholes than anything. You do know that the US tax code rewards laying people off in the US and gives them a tax break for hiring overseas
Yet another Tea Buggerer who is fact deficient and lied to way too much
sol3a1 10 months ago
Wow, rich people that are elected into office give themselves and other rich people tax breaks, who saww that coming? But every election the same two parties get elected, people complain about the Democrats when they do a bad job then Republicans get elected, the REpublicans do worse and the Democrats get elected. Nothing is gonna get better when you have two corporate owned parties runnin the scene.
TheDakota671 10 months ago
Even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was against the idea of collective bargaining for government employees. All it takes is a little bit of thinking and the reason should become clear. . . The Union gets the person elected who then uses the treasury of the people to pay the union who gets them re-elected. Rinse an Repeat... Thanks Progressive Socialists.. Get a real job where you have to do something!!
way2virgo 10 months ago
@way2virgo That, sir, is flawless logic. There is no way that could be wrong.
TheDakota671 10 months ago
The Young Turds are MORONS, especially that douche. However, Ana Kasparian does suck a good dick. Plus she swallows. Not that "Jank" or cockboy there would know.
bobbeedigi 10 months ago
When Bush gave tax cuts he said it would create jobs, here we are 10 years later with probably around 20% unemployment and they (Republicans) want to continue these Voodoo economics as Bush Sr once described them in a debate. They are trying to bring China wages back to America it seems. Sometimes I wonder if Fox News uses subliminal brain washing techniques because its the piss poor mid-Americans in trailer parks that will still vote Republican?? Crazy Days we live in
GameICY 11 months ago 2
The Republican Party should get their selves a new mascot instead of the elephant because they have to much amnesia when it comes to what George W.Bush to this country.
sonofatiger 11 months ago
@sonofatiger Maybe the new Republican mascot could be a leech filled with blood? We could pop it and get our 3 Trillion dollars back from the wall street banks!
pollclaire 11 months ago
Comment removed
sonofatiger 11 months ago
The GOP grandstanding taking place by the recently "elected" governors and representatives are reminiscent of the old Godfather's when asked for their raison detre...."God did not ask me to use reason, but to use the end of a gun"....
Finally, the GOP are showing their truth face....
OpusDei0001 11 months ago
If collective bargaining is a right recognized by the U.S. than how come federal employees don't have this right? I am a Wisconsin tax payer were are my right from getting screwed by the public unions. Collective bargaining is not a natural right because it is given by the government, and can be morally taken away.
MrSchemp 11 months ago
Did nothing wrong? They RAN AWAY...like cowards. Did nothing wrong my ass...they were elected for those positions too, you people say Fox twists things, every news station does, msnbc and CNN are more biased then fox news, but since 90% of media is liberal you people just can't see it. Also, governor walker is 43, if that's so young how old is the guy in this video? "all you have to do is graduate high school" yea, walker did that 25 years ago, way to attack his age by the way...fuckin idiot
xXxDANMANxXx 11 months ago
@xXxDANMANxXx 100% of the truth is liberal/progressive. I'd say the truth is massively biased. Liberalism/progressivism is the basis of law/democracy itself, without which you would still have slavery/local dicatorships/mafia rule. But you keep on going, son.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur that had nothing to do with my comment, don't dodge, thats also a truth about liberals
xXxDANMANxXx 11 months ago
Robin hood stole from the rich to give to the poor. He didn't break up the unions and give to the rich.
georgekostaras 11 months ago
@georgekostaras No ones giving anything to the rich, just because they take away union rights doesn't mean they're taking away their pay checks...you can't collectively bargain with tax payer dollars thats just wrong. And besides, teachers are forced to pay thousands to be in a union which they have no say in at all, they also get outrageous benefits as well. Oh lemme point out, they'll realize what all the rest of us have to do in order to have health insurance and other things like that.
xXxDANMANxXx 11 months ago
@xXxDANMANxXx Yup, nobody gives the rich anything, yup. Except for their parents who they inherited their riches from in the first place. Governor Scott Fuckhead is working union busting, which is unconstitutional. Not to mention that Governor Cumstain is planning to sell state services in non-bidding sales to private interests. My friend, The Koch brothers and their ilk are the ones trying to kill the American dream.
georgekostaras 11 months ago
@georgekostaras it's not unconstitutional, collective bargaining isn't even a real "right", stop all the hatred and sly remarks and rethink your logic
xXxDANMANxXx 11 months ago
@xXxDANMANxXx Collective bargaining is a recognized human right by the United Nations, the Supreme Court of Canda and in the United States under the 1935 National Labour relations act which regulates employer employee relations. How's that for sly remarks? If you want Capitalism, just look to Tsarist Russia as a shining example of ignorance and serfdom.
georgekostaras 11 months ago
@georgekostaras calling collective bargaining a right is beyond absurd. It's like saying haggling on the price of a car or house is a "human right". You only have a right to life, libery, and propery, and technically that's all just one right. Anything else is an abuse of the word.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter Right, like child labour laws are also not a human right. Why should those little faggots be in school when they could be working in a factory, losing fingers in the gears and dying early. China has no bargaining rights, they live in a state of pure capitalism. Try working in one of their fucking factories for a day and see how long it is before you start singing the praise of Marx. Or one of the sweatshops in Thailand. Try that for size.
georgekostaras 11 months ago
@georgekostaras Children are not adults that can consent to work or recieve the benefits of their own labor. So your argument goes "China has capitalism and China is poor, therefore capitalism causes poverty"? *Facepalm*. Really, I can't make this stuff up.
Houshalter 11 months ago
0:45 - wait, "billions of taxpayers in the state of wisconsin" ??? check your math, scotty, there are definitely not billions of people living in wisconsin. how this man ever got elected is beyond me.
igotcrazylove 11 months ago
yes they are taking their "first born child"....they do have rights to collectively bargain...enjoy your term Governor as you'll not be elected next term
granger18trains 11 months ago
@granger18trains where do these rights come from? Or are they just made up?
Houshalter 11 months ago
Of course if you increase taxes, you can pay for anything.
Deficits are caused by the amount spent being greater than the revenue taken in. You can say the problem is too much spending, or too little taxing. BOTH ARE CORRECT.
Cutting spending increases the integrated, fluid and growthful market economy, raising taxes decreases that and instead increases the semi-static and disintegrated state economy (disintegrated meaning not having to earn more than what's spent).
fringeelements 11 months ago 2
@fringeelements Define "growthful".
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
That's pretty explanatory. State programs don't grow from their own revenues. Market firms do.
fringeelements 11 months ago
@fringeelements By that definition of "growthful", arms manufacturers in the world are "growthful", yet there is a net loss to humanity.
The same is true of e.g. fraudsters.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
Americans are idiots!
BrianFejer 11 months ago
GO SCOTT GO!
automattek91 11 months ago
Well done Governor Walker, the Bill has passed!
dantheleo 11 months ago
A CEO (call him David Koch), a talk show host (call him Glenn Beck), & a talk show darling (call her Sarah Palin), are sitting at a table with a unionized public employee, & a teabagger. On the table there are 12 cookies. Koch reaches across, takes 11 cookies, gives 2 to Beck & 2 to Palin before getting up & leaving the restaurant (without paying his bill). Beck & Palin then look at the teabagger & say, "Watch out for that union guy, he’ll leave you with nothing but crumbs."
Will224000 11 months ago
You know they're OUT of arguments, when the cussing takes over.
A good debate is always LOST by the one resorting to foul language and senseless babble.
Tough to be a Palin fan, ey? You just can't defend an idiot parading as a genius.
Is it going to take a small child to eventually point it out? "Mommie, that woman isn't wearing any clothes!"
Exit, Empress Polly Palin. It's only a matter of time.
Check out the score: Palin's fans are represented by the RED number! REALITY CHECK!
SynchroTotal 11 months ago
A producer/seller does not ever NEED to "guess" the price of what they're producing. They just put it on the market and price-adjust until it sells. They're on the front line.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
The tax cuts for big businesses is probably the reason that three of the largest U.S. Companies are expanding into Wisconsin and could potentially create 22,000 jobs in Wisconsin. By the way, Collective Bargaining Power is NOT a right, it's just that...power!
dantheleo 11 months ago 2
@dantheleo What? A coalition of people getting together and agreeing not to work to get an employer to give fair wages. That's what a union is. And actually the Supreme Court's recent decision of Citizen's United affirms that right.
bashia 11 months ago
Making a billionaire pay a fairer share in taxes could emply THOUSANDS of middle class workers.
The billionaire doesn't care about the thousands of workers whose wages he claims for himself while the thousands of workers don't get to work, thus don't get to pay taxes from any wages.
YOU want to fight for the billionaire and his "right" to keep as much of his tax money to "invest" (aka stockpile in off shore accounts), that's the Republican way.
Your way reminds of the GILDED AGE. Sad!
SynchroTotal 1 year ago
@theozone2005 You are missing the point entirely. First off, you are misinformed on the pensions, as are many others. The entire idea behind a pension is that the worker contributes part of their current wage, to be deferred to a later time. So the pension money is from their own salaries. What is your deal anyway? Are you getting paid by a right wing think tank or do you just hate teachers?
TheyCallHimTheTops 1 year ago
If they want their collective, cult or commune, then let them fund it themselves. America is a country more than ever built and maintained by self employed, under employed and temps. Unions need to get with the program. New York States pension budget for one year is 9 percent of the total US GDP. 109 billion. This is what states are dealing with. To all you mob chanting goofball circlejerks, get off my TV. Unions used to have a real purpose. Not in your case.
treasurector 1 year ago
@treasurector Unions are one of the main reasons America had such a growing middle class and standard of living up until the 80's when Reagan started dismantling our country. For fuck's sake, the wealth disparity in this country is a lot like it was in 20s right before the great depression, and if you think that not having Unions are going to fix things you are flat out misinformed! If anything we need MORE unions and we need them now.
TheyCallHimTheTops 1 year ago
Someone with 10 billion dollars in earnings is just as happy with 9 billion. We shouldn't borrow from China to make fat cats explode from their wealth.
Someone who lost a 40k job due to corporate greed and now gets unemployment to barely survive will stimulate the economy MORE than someone who simply prefers CASH to yet another beach house in the Bahamas.
Tax the RICH a bit more, for Pete's sake! ANY budget shorfall can be "handled" by letting millionaires pay a fairer share in taxes!
SynchroTotal 1 year ago
@SynchroTotal no one makes that much money. Even if they did, assuming they produced something of equivelant value in exchange for it, I don't see anything justifiable about stealing some of it to give to someone who didn't do shit for anybody.
Houshalter 1 year ago
teachers producing DISMAL results in schools where BILLIONS disappear while every homeowner pays $1000s a year. A classroom is 30 chair-desks and a blackboard, and a good teacher. Govt owns the buildings. No rent. No insurance. BILLIONS. THEY STILL CANT TEACH. Blame Bush? No Money for Books? Where are last years books? Kids barely reading? but teachers are set for life, and angry, but they are protesting "for the kids sake" of course. Economy is in toilet, they are set for life, but want more.
theozone2005 1 year ago 2
@theozone2005 They are protesting because their uneducated Governor is trying to take away their right to collectively bargain. Set for life? Are you fucking serious? These people make next to nothing to provide a public service and are trying to protect that little that they do make. The son of a bitch created the budget shortfall by giving tax breaks to corporations just so that he could fuck with the union. The country is going to shit because of conservative fucking bullshit, not teachers.
TheyCallHimTheTops 1 year ago
@TheyCallHimTheTops "especially when you factor in the great vacation schedule and the comprehensive benefits packages that usually go along with teaching. In Wisconsin, teaching salaries averaged $52,644 in 2009-10, according to the National Education Association, with most school districts offering benefits that range from health insurance to retirement plans" In WI the teachers contribute ZERO to their pensions and salaries. ZERO. teacher-world com
theozone2005 1 year ago
@TheyCallHimTheTops Ooops. WI teachers contribute ZERO to pensions and healthcare. I know ZERO is very tough, especially in the summers when they have 3 months off to think about it.
theozone2005 1 year ago
The right to bargain? They already have PENSIONS and HEALTHCARE for LIFE, 3 months off a year, and enormous say over every aspect of job. What do they want to bargain more for? Limos service? In 2 years there is another election and they can give the collective bargaining rights BACK. American non union workers also have collective bargaining power regarding how much we pay govt workers, its called ELECTIONS.
theozone2005 1 year ago
You guys suck
zieben64 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi Gov. Scott Walker! You're going to call off your proposed bill. You're going to publicly state that you will not take away collective bargaining rights. Or... these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.
NaziGOPBallmer 1 year ago
LOL, this is so stupid.
Sundogjeep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When Republicans lose, Democrats advise them to "Suck it up", "Deal with it" or "Get over it, we won".
When Democrats lose in the same process, they scream, cry, shout, deficate and run to another state.
2012 can't get here soon enough to suit me.
Sundogjeep 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When Republicans lose, Democrats advise them to "Suck it up", "Deal with it" or "Get over it, we won".
When Democrats lose in the same process, they scream, cry, shout, deficate and run to another state.
2012 can't get here soon enough to suit me.
Sundogjeep 1 year ago
@KiheiLawyer What? That's just stupid. Where'd you get that idea--Fox news, I bet. Unions are coalitions of people getting together to get decent working conditions and wages from their employers. Doesn't matter if the employer is the government or a private entity.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia except all they end up doing is perpetuating the ridiculously expensive public education system we have now, even though it's completely failing and quality has only gone down.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter education costs have gone up and quality down mostly because of the unfunded No Child Left Behind program, not because of teacher pay which is not even increasing at the rate of inflation. While Wall Street has caused this depression they have workers turning on each other rather than the banksters that ought to be in jail for stealing billions from our economy. Watch Inside Job or Client 9. Or go to Democracy Now and click on Matt Taibbi in the right hand column.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia Even when the money goes directly to the schools, it generally doesn't do much, and they still cost far more then private education with lower quality.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter It has nothing to do with money going directly to the schools, it has to do with increased costs due to the unfunded No Child Left Behind program that requires teachers spend too much time teaching to the test and not really teaching. The fact is this is not about the budget since the teachers have agreed to the cuts. It's about union busting. Unions brought ALL of us the weekend, 40 hour work week, overtime pay not to mention those extra benefits that some of us still have.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia all of that is just deducted from potential pay. They also brought us the minimum wage and look at what a disaster that was.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter dear you need to go back and find out what life was like before the unions. The pioneers didn't travel thousands of miles through hazardous territory just because they were brave. They usually undertook that danger to escape horrendous lifestyles and working conditions with no hope of any opportunity. It was the unions that brought us what we now call the American dream.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia how do you know the working conditions wouldn't have improved the same if not more without unions? Your making an assumption.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter we had to fight to get a 40 hour work week. Employers don't just willingly give overtime pay. Especially publicly traded businesses are all about profit. You can see that wages have decreased, people are losing benefits and are working increased hours since unions have been weakened by the continuous attack on them since Reagan. I'm not making an assumption at all. Really don't you know there's a class warfare going on and you're being duped?
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia your assuming that one party in a voluntary transaction arbitrarily has more power in price setting then the other party, the parties being the employer and employee, respectively. This is simply not the case as it is in any non-coercive exchange.The employers have to compete for labor just as much as the employees have to compete for wages. Even if this somehow wasn't the case, it still wouldn't justify all these regulations which have no mechanism to determine their costs and benefits.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter in the last 40 some years there has been so much unemployment so that employers have the upper hand. Get rid of the high rates of unemployment and your argument might have some validity.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia unemployment is caused by market wages falling below government enforced price floors. Price floors always lead to quantities of a perfectly good resource not being used because the price is artificially higher then the actual supply vs demand, so the market treats it like it is a scarcer resource then it actually is. This is called the minimum wage.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter good theory except it doesn't work. In every country where the IMF has imposed these types of economic strategies, the ultra rich got richer and the rest got poorer. In fact in countries with privatized school systems approx. 40% of people are unable to obtain education. On the other hand, countries with a well regulated capitalist system combined with a strong social support system have the highest standard of living for all, not just some.
bashia 1 year ago
@bashia correlation does not imply causation. The only countries with private education left are in the third world. Europe has a better educational system better then the US and that's because parents can choose where they want to send their kids to school. Even though the government runs it, the mechanism of competetion keeps it in check.
And the first world "regulated capitalist system" is on the verge of collapse. That is not a success by any means.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter again come on--our system is failed because of the criminal banking activity as a result of deregulation and refusal to enforce regulation. We've had trillions sucked out of our economy because of that. Also, those needless wars are sucking trillions more out. To blame it on regulation is RIDICULOUS. You know there are other reputed economists out there that agree with me--such as Joseph Stigletz, Paul Krugman, James Galbraith, Ravi Batra.
bashia 11 months ago
@bashia our system is failed because central planning never works. Period.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter The US political system isn't based on central planning. It's based on representative democracy, with a smear of moneyed influence through campaign contributions.
That's not central planning.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur "The US political system isn't based on central planning." Government is based on central planning, what are you talking about?
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter No, government in the US is not based on central planning. It's based on congressional (representative) approval of resolutions/bills. Therefore, scrutiny is open to the American people entitled to vote, who elect the congressmen, and then further scrutiny by those congressmen themselves (who have disparate views, which ideally represent the disparate views out there in the public). The only thing that prevents proper scrutiny is money in politics. That'll go, by law, one day too.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur only 10 - 20% of the population, which is mostly uneducated on the issues anyways, gets to decide which of several possible canidates which mostly support the same things and have no accountability whatsoever, will "represent" the rest of the population by taking their money and forcing them to do or not do whatever they want. If you think that is acceptable, you are way past help. How about we take it a step further and eliminate politics altogether, before it's to late?
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter Replace voter and representative scrutiny in politics by warlord/mafia rule? I don't think so. It's not "majority rule" anyway, congress holds DEBATES, where the most compelling argument can hold sway, even if it originates from a minority. That's the whole point of debates in congress, and not direct majority rule (like referendums on everything, for example).
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur no one is suggesting "warlord/mafia rule" that is what we have now. If you can't see how a society could possible exist without a ruling class telling everyone how to run their lives, that is fine with me. Stick with your government if you want. You do not have a right, however, to force me or anyone else that does not consent to it to be forced to fund it and obey it. Just let us opt-out! People deserve the right to make that decision themselves, you can't make it for them.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter The point of democracy is to allow you to persuade others to change the laws i.e. provoke discussion. So if you don't like the laws, you're supposed to try and use reason.
Money hinders here, but it's a MUCH better system than where the BEST ARMED people require NO scrutiny to be able to use violent force against their neighbours! Yes you might be frustrated with others in our systems, but it's FAR better than the alternative!! Let's just improve our system to listen to more voices.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur there is absolutly no evidence of that, in fact there is tons of evidence to the contrary. If our system was far better then any alternative, then people wouldn't have to be forced to fund it with half of their income.
There is no reason I should have to convince a majority of the population that I have rights. I already do, whether they agree or disagree is irrelevant.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter The system holds that the standard of proof is your ability to convince others by reason. What do you think is the best standard of proof?
One that hold this as a basis for its policy is the best system.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur the system that allows people to choose which system they want to live under directly is the best, since people are self-interested and will choose the most optimal system possible. You go your way, I'll go mine.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter "self-interested" is where the problem of slavery and self-interested extortion (self-interested robbery) arises. If everyone was "self-interested", as you say, people would happily enslave as many people as they could.
Even if a small percentage were "self-interested", those enslavers would be the ones who end up with the most personal wealth.
Can't you understand this?
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur no. An pure altruist is "self-interested". Every rational being has ends they seek to achieve or utilities to maximize. If they didn't, then there would be no rational reason for them to make any action whatsoever. Libertarianism is just about letting people chose where to spend their own resources to achieve their individual ends, as opposed to making them slaves to work for the interests of a few.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter There's a huge difference between those who are purely-self-interested, who would happily enslave others purely for their own (and NOBODY else's) personal profit, and those who consider all other beings. The problem is how to deal with the potential enslavers (the first kind of people)? Libertarianism is insufficient to deal with, or address that. Well it's worse, it would totally allow that to happen, without any recourse for victims.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur there's nothing about the current system that stops slavery if your going to say that as long as people want something they automatically are going to get it. Crime is prevented by people defending themselves. If a state was really necessary to defend our rights, people would pay for it voluntarily.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter "Crime is prevented by people defending themselves". That is fundamentally false, as evidenced by the fact that a crime is when a person could NOT defend themself. If a person COULD defend themself, then of course a crime doesn't happen. So that's self-evidently false. And in the real world, crime happens against defenseless people.
People DEMAND taxes through the representative democratic system. What's your evidence they don't? e.g. Why don't they all vote for Ron Paul/tea party?
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@Houshalter "Crime is prevented by people defending themselves". That is fundamentally false, as evidenced by the fact that a crime is when a person could NOT defend themself. If a person COULD prevent it, then of course a crime doesn't happen. So that's self-evidently false. And in the real world, crime occurs against those who can't stop it.
People DEMAND taxes through the representative democratic system. What's your evidence they don't? e.g. Why don't they all vote for Ron Paul/tea party?
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur Like most services, people usually don't do them all by themselves when it's sub-optimal. Some people may want to depend only on themselves or the people around them for defense, and that's fine for them, but most people want to pay police to protect them. The thing is, currently there is one monopoly police force, no one has a choice to leave, and they aren't accountable for shit.
There's no such thing as a market demand for theft. That makes no sense.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter There is a demand for robbery via taxes, and this is clearly evidenced by the fact that people don't all just vote for Ron Paul, who is against all of it (which would ironically give well enough armed robbers free to rob anyway).
Why else is it that you think people don't just all vote for Tea Party candidates or Ron Paul? If it happens, then all mandatory taxes would disappear, so it IS an option via the democratic system! (maybe the last, but still).
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur if two people vote to rape the third, is that a market demand for rape that must be met? Your argument is absurd. Plus I seriously doubt an informed population from a stable stateless society would vote back a state if given the choice. It would be like people today voting back slavery if the 14th amendment were suddenly removed.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Hous If two people make a voluntary exchange to pollute a third person's air (without laws against it)... that's a "market demand" too. Except that the democratic "demand" is not even as bad because it goes through the filter of congressional/parliamentary discussion, where the "third" person gets a face-to-face chance to reason their case against it, and if their reasoning is compelling enough, they get their way. So it's not "majority rule" like a direct (referendum-based) democracy would be.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@Houshalter A "stable stateless society" is impossible. People are not born with automatic consideration for others.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@Houshalter And all big money in politics tends towards libertarianism, too. And despite that, people resist it through the ballot box.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur anyways, this would be a good thing for everybody! If government truly is the optimal way, then you can keep it. But it will have to compete against the benefits offered by our system, or any other system anyone can think of. This will force it to make reforms to survive, which is what you want anyways.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter Democracy ALLOWS a "no government" option e.g. Ron Paul would eliminate all mandatory taxes, and so would nearly all "Tea Party" candidates. Personally I think it would be a disaster for everybody except the most ruthless, well-armed purely-self-interested thugs. But if you can convince enough people, it would happen.
And theres plenty of money behind libertarianism too. All big money in politics tends towards libertarianism.
TheNavigateur 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur "And theres plenty of money behind libertarianism too. All big money in politics tends towards libertarianism."
I loled. Libertarians get almost no funding from the unions or the corporatists because they are against both.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@TheNavigateur how about based on moneyed influence with a touch of representative democracy? In fact, because of the corporate media, 30% of our voting machines non-verifiable and controlled by corporations, gerrymandering, the two party system and the fact that increasingly legislators are dependent on big money donations to get elected--there ain't much representative democracy left.
bashia 11 months ago
@Houshalter worked pretty damn well during and after WWII until the baby boomers.
bashia 11 months ago
@bashia the government was relatively small after WWII, try again.
Houshalter 11 months ago
@Houshalter What!? Most of the New Deal "big government" programs the right complains about were in place: Social Security, AFDC, SSI, Fair Labor Act, Securities & Exchange, etc. As far as social programs, our government is smaller today being consistently cut since Reagan. But it's bigger in regards to HOMELAND SECURITY and the MIC. It's really not how big the government is, it's who's controlling it and who it serves, and that's not us.
bashia 11 months ago
@Houshalter oh, and by the way, your grammar and spelling has improved remarkably these last few days.
bashia 11 months ago
YoungTurds = stupid entertainment for stupid people
ashane77 1 year ago
OK, sonny-boy, I think your schooling is done with.
Take care...
ashane77 1 year ago
The tax breaks for businesses were for if they HIRE new people, which would bring MORE REVENUE into the state (because new employees would pay taxes) and these breaks were passed by both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS in the state Congress. You're whole "blame the tax cuts" rhetoric is false..
And JR does not work for the people of Wisconsin, nor is he being paid by tax payer money, so him leaving the state does not compare to the Senators DUCKING THEIR JOB.
DKaidian 1 year ago
I almost don't feel sympathy for these people, they voted the Republicans in, despite people like Cenk, me and many others telling our fellow Republican friends not to, they still vote for them(I guess hating minorities is more important than your own future, what utter fools)
I feel sorry for those who did indeed vote againts these rich loving corporate sellout politicians in WI.
Stupidity abounds.
lifeisforaseason 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lifeisforaseason They are brainwashed by FOX NEWS!
carnypimp 1 year ago
Why do government workers even need a union? I dont see any conflict with "management" - which are the politicians. Politicians are only too happy to give government unions what they want in exchange for votes. Government employees are the most coddled, overpaid, spoiled and worthless "workers" in America.
Dukeoftruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ANTIDOTE TO THE BRAIN-NUMBING STUPIDITY OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA PROPAGANDA PEDDLER YOUNGTURDS:
Enter into search bar:
Freedomain Radio -- Schooled In Wisconsin
&
Dumbed Down to the Very Ground! True News from Freedomain Radio
ashane77 1 year ago
THE ANTIDOTE TO THE BRAIN-NUMBING STUPIDITY OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA PROPAGANDA PEDDLER YOUNGTURDS:
Enter into search bar:
Freedomain Radio -- Schooled In Wisconsin
&
Dumbed Down to the Very Ground! True News from Freedomain Radio
ashane77 1 year ago
Did you know State Workers can retire at 25 years and buy into 5 years and get a retirement of 90% of their pay!?.They start at 18 years old out of high school work til they are 43 and quit and still get 100.000.00 plus to do NOTHING!. Some retirees in California retire as Firemarshalls and get 187k in retirement per year! And they are COMPLAINING!? Sorry, but we as taxpayers are broke!, No mas, no more, tapped out. We are losing our jobs, our homes and value in our 401ks and they are whining!.
falcondan95705 1 year ago
@falcondan95705 after hyper-inflation that will be almost nothing. But good point.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@falcondan95705 blame it on private industry which everybody says is the big problem, but you dont listen because your ideological.
Also if you will listen though that seems hard for you, they pay in to get that much income in early retirement.
Also, this issue is over the gov not even allowing for negotiations which the unions are up for doing as they usually are.
They make cuts yearly, so learn to listen and not go only along ideological lines.
waltermh111 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE ANTIDOTE TO THE BRAIN-NUMBING STUPIDITY OF THESE CORPORATE MEDIA SHILLS (The YoungTurds):
Enter "Freedomain Radio -- Schooled In Wisconsin" into the search bar above for the truth on the situation.
ashane77 1 year ago
THE ANTIDOTE TO THE BRAIN-NUMBING STUPIDITY OF THESE CORPORATE MEDIA SHILLS (The YoungTurds):
Enter "Freedomain Radio -- Schooled In Wisconsin" into the search bar above for the truth on the situation.
ashane77 1 year ago
Every worker should have the FREEDOM to join a union if they choose but NO worker should be FORCED to join a union or be FORCED to pay dues or fees to a union just to obtain or keep a job. FORCED unionism is forced SLAVERY!
Forced Unionism relies on gov’t regulation for union power instead of selling the benefits of the union to worker who would be free to choose.
Forced unionism is bad for the union because politics change and so does the union’s ability to force membership.
yakyakyak69 1 year ago
"All that harms labor is treason to America." - Abraham Lincoln
PerryLogan 1 year ago
@PerryLogan Unions harm labor, therefore they're treasonous.
megagagnon1 1 year ago
@megagagnon1 What happened to state's rights and the rights of the individual? Isn't that the type of bullshit where those representatives owning a gun and shooting that state trooper would be justified by NRA standards?
DisturbedHavok 1 year ago
@housetaboo The jobs market will recover. Until then, the govt. needs to fill the gap, even if those govt. jobs are anything better than stupid. That is all. But the tea party people want "smaller government" RIGHT NOW... = less jobs. Obama's scared of the tea party people and Republicans. Do you understand that? If he wasn't scared, there'd be much lower unemployment numbers during this (temporary) period.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur With the Right To Work Law that is the death warrant for americas economy. Mexico will be better than the United States. Already in Right To Work Law states employees earn 10k to 15k less a year real great huh? That is not including unions. When the union contracts are up the company offers better pay then after a few months drops the pay and laughs at the employees. It is drty politics that eliminate the middle class. Welcome it is the 1930's all over again.
carnypimp 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur pay people to dig holes and fill them back in. With money stolen from productive areas of the economy. What could possibly go wrong?
Houshalter 1 year ago
@ashane77 I don't see how massive amounts of speculation (which caused the recession) = socialism. I'd call that a stupid form of capitalism.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur Lol we are called proggressives= progress wich Bush stopped because he put religion above science and progress. Sorry ass GOP screwed america everytime.
carnypimp 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur speculation caused the recession? Wow, you are more clueless then I thought. We're on the verge of the worst depression in history, and it has absolutely nothing to do with speculation. Hell, the more speculation the better, since people that can predict the crisis can invest in things that will be scarce or necessary during it.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
You don't see how govt granting a monopoly to the banks to create as much money out of thin air--and then govt also covering the banks losses w/tax money--is a form of socialism-fascism? You're not very bright then, are you? If you think this is an example of free-market capitalism you're insane.
And your little "nopers" comment reveals you to be nothing more than a barbaric nazi...democracy is a sham--its usually about 20% (or less) of the populace which elects majorities.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 The banks' special priveleges are because of corruption. "No democracy" wouldn't exactly solve that either. Only banning third-party speculation altogether would end recessions, since SPECULATION (leading to price instabilities) causes recessions.
The speculation is the harmful component of capitalism, the special priveleges given to speculators exacerbated it.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
No, the banks special privilege is due to GOVT...GOVT granted banks the powers they have. This is a FACT. "Speculation" is a favorite word of socialists that they use to blame the problems THEY created on the private sector. Recessions/Depressions occur because of changes in the money supply, malinvestment caused by monetary policy, and price-fixing...both thanks to, you guessed it, GOVT meddling in the economy and granting monopoly powers to connected corporations/people.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Corruption between govt. and speculators, like I said. Desired by speculators, granted by govt. Corruption should be banned. And will, eventually, because the PEOPLE will demand it from successive administrations. Thank god there's democracy to make that possible, eh? Democracy ALREADY banned govt. officials from POCKETING money. Now all that's left is campaign donations. And that will come in the future, for exactly the same reasons, the pocketing money was banned.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
You're ignoring the CORE problem: govt force.
Can you even define "speculator"?
Yes, democracy sure has produced great results, hasn't it? 20% of the populace electing a few 100 people to rule 300 million+ human beings is totally sane, rational, and moral!
VASTLY more people can vote now than 200 years ago, yet...we are FAR LESS FREE...and corruption is MORE rampant than ever...
Democracy = The God That Failed
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Elections are totally representative of who majority of people would choose, and this is backed up by pre-election polls of ALL (not just likely) voters.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
FACT: politicians win elections w/seldom more than 10-20% of the populace they allegedly represent.
Democracy is not freedom. Want proof? Next time you go out to eat w/friends, instead of you all ordering what you individually desire to eat, take a vote and make everyone eat what the biggest bloc of voters want.
To you, 10-20% electing a few politicians (who are usually TOTAL STRANGERS to those who vote for them and those t hey rule) to rule the other 80-90% makes sense.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I JUST TOLD YOU, that 10-20% IS REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE OTHER 80-90% WANTS, AND THE PROOF IS IN PRE-ELECTION POLLS OF ALL (NOT JUST "LIKELY" VOTERS).
Jeez, can't you read?
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
You're full of crap.
You're saying that the 70 million (or so) who voted for Obama represent, not only their own desires, but the desires of the 60 million (or so) who voted for McCain, the desires of the million (or so) who voted 3rd Party, AND the desries of the 200 million (or so) who didn't (or couldn't) vote at all?
Do you realize how idiotic this assertion is?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 No I said the people who did vote is a fair representation of the people who didn't BOTHER to vote as well, and this is proven by the pre-election polls of all (not just likely) voters.
Try to comprehend, not just make something up that I did not say.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
You're just repeating the same old nonsense.
70 million putting a checkmark next to Obama's name is ONLY evidence for THEIR preference, not the other 260 million who DIDN'T.
To deny this is to deny reality and shows how desperate you've become in our little debate.
You've watched too much YoungTurds...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 I said the people who voted.... I didn't say the people who voted for Obama.
Try to comprehend. I don't think it's difficult?
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
You've failed to address by points about voting and everything else.
I asked you very simple questions and you couldn't answer them.
You said that those who elect ruling majorities represent the rest who didn't...and I showed how stupid this assertion was.
Your childish response is to keep repeating the same failed argument and then say "Try to comprehend"...
I don't think YOU even know WTF point you THINK you're making!
Loser...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Your points about voting? That many who are FULLY ENTITLED TO VOTE don't BOTHER to vote, thus DELEGATING the choice to those who CARE? How is this problematic?
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur "didn't BOTHER"? Obviously the vast majority of people value having Obama as president less then the cost of voting, which is pretty small as it is. That cost is nothing compared to the massive taxes and violation of rights they would pay for doing so. And most people that did vote for him did so because they thought he was "the lesser of two evils" or his skin color or a specific policy, whatever, not because they approve of his entire policy.
Polls are bullshit by the way.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter "Polls are bullshit"... your argument for that is what? Why are you focusing on Obama... he has virtually no power except veto. Why not talk about congressional elections? Money in politics is the big destroyer of the system, none of the crap you just said.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur there is little correlation between polls and who actually wins elections. They are complete crap.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Anyway, if the votes are counted correctly, the people who didn't bother voting have VOLUNTARILY GIVEN them that power.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur WRONG! Those who vote have given their consent to the election process. Those that don't (a majority of the population by the way) have not and can not be affected by it.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Erm nope, abstainers have chosen to not have their voice heard.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur no, I am here making my voice heard right now. I refuse to give my consent to the election process because it is immoral and does not work or accurately represent me in any meaningful way. If the half of people that do vote want government imposed on themselves, they can do so on a voluntary basis, but they have no justification to force it on the rest of us, nor could they without subsidizing the costs off to people that don't consent.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Those are "protest ballots" or spoiled ballots. Did you do that? If not, then you didn't make your voice heard AT ALL. And you chose not to.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur your ignoring the point. In order the justify the initiation of force in a democracy, 51% of the population has to consent. Since only 20% of the population voted for Obama to represent them, and of those that did only a small fraction of them may completely agree with him, anything he does is not truly justifiable democratically at all. The same goes for all other elected leaders. They are no different then any other tyrrants in history that appeased a minority of the...
Houshalter 1 year ago
...population to get power over all the rest.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@TheNavigateur
My friend, you LOST our little debate...I know it...you know it...anyone who followed it knows it...
You now have 2 choices:
1. Dig your heels in and keep on defending your failed position
2. Recognize that your ideology is faulty and pursue the truth that I demonstrated to you
I can't do it for you...I led you to truth, but you have to decide to drink of its cleansing waters on your own...I can't do your thinking for you.
You no longer have an excuse for being ignorant.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 Bravo... and epic fail. You know you've lost a debate when your last point has NO logical points, and nothing to back up your point of view. Thanks for playing. Maybe you'll have the guts to try again in future.
To summarise: laws are derived by representative discussion, and that's why they exist. Your fantasy world represents NO point in history. So it's funny anyone would call you "conservative". You're actually a radical, deluded nut-case whose own plans would self-destroy.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago
@ashane77 A 3rd-party speculator is one who invests in something they don't have DIRECT operational control over, solely for profit.
i.e. trying to use economic phemonena to make money from doing nothing.
They collectively cause recessions BECAUSE speculative demand is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE when there are high volumes of such speculation, causing market fluctuations that OTHERWISE WOULDN'T EXIST, forcing businesses to make radical changes, inevitably causing high private-sector unemployment.
TheNavigateur 1 year ago