Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Surely the government wants to pay as low wages as possible to public employees?

No. Here, politicians want to buy the votes and campaign contributions of the unions, so the people on both sides of the table sit and negotiate over how much of the taxpayer's money to give to each other. It's corrupt. Thus the big stink in Wisconsin over ending collective bargaining "rights."

Edit: Here's a page showing some of the results of collective bargaining from Wisconsin.

http://walker.wi.gov/journal_media_detail.asp?locid=177&prid=5671

Some gems:

A Cedarburg school teacher was reinstated by an arbitrator after being fired for viewing pornography on a school computer. The school district ultimately succeeded in terminating the teacher only after taking the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court at great cost to the taxpayers.

and

Milwaukee Public Schools teacher Megan Sampson was laid off less than one week after being named Outstanding First Year Teacher by the Wisconsin Council of English Teachers. She lost her job because the collective bargaining agreement requires layoffs to be made based on seniority rather than merit.

Informed that her union had rejected a lower-cost health care plan, that still would have required zero contribution from teachers, Sampson said, “Given the opportunity, of course I would switch to a different plan to save my job, or the jobs of 10 other teachers.

and

Under the Green Bay School District’s collectively bargained Emeritus Program, teachers can retire and receive a year’s worth of salary for working only 30 days over a three year period. This is paid in addition to their already guaranteed pension and health care payouts.

and

In 2009, the City of Madison’s highest paid employee was a bus driver who earned $159,258, including $109,892 in overtime, guaranteed by a collective bargaining agreement. In total, seven City of Madison bus drivers made more than $100,000 per year in 2009.

"That's the (drivers'😉 contract," said Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson.

and

Correctional Officer collective bargaining agreements allow officers a practice known as “sick leave stacking.” Officers can call in sick for a shift, receiving 8 hours of sick pay, and then are allowed to work the very next shift, earning time-and-a-half for overtime. This results in the officer receiving 2.5 times his or her rate of pay, while still only working 8 hours.

In part because of these practices, 13 correctional officers made more than $100,000 in 2009, despite earning base wages of less than $60,000 per year. The officers received an average of $66,000 in overtime pay for an average annual salary of more than $123,000 with the highest paid receiving $151,181.

and

The Milwaukee Teachers Education Association (MTEA) tried to use a policy established by collective bargaining to obtain health insurance coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.

Originally posted by FMF
Your animosity and bumper sticker intellect count for very little, Wajoma. You have no credibility on the issue of "fraud". Here you are, a few weeks ago: [b]"You should pay [tax] for the services you use, so if you believe yourself to be in credit you are morally justified in evading taxes".

Pressed to explain this you fell silent. No wonder. Tax evasio ...[text shortened]... r 'bureaucrat' or some other such absolute zinger. But who will care?[/b]

"Tax evasion is fraud." Sometimes. In the USA nearly everyone engages is some degree of tax evasion, from sending lobbyists to Congress, to legally sheltering income or profits from taxation, to hiring H and R Block to minimize liability. I don't know of anyone sane who endeavours to maximize their tax liability.

Besides this, America has a rich tradition of opposing, protesting, nullifying, and revolting over unjust, illegal, and imoral taxation.

Our founding revolution was begun over "taxation without representation". With our government's present spending policy, we are taxing people not yet born, and money not yet earned. How are these unborn represented in the taxation issues?

The 16th amendment, which made income taxes theoretically legal in the USA was not properly ratified. It is invalid. Withholding income taxes is therefore not criminal evading, but an attempt to enlighten other citizens to the criminal wrongs perpetrated by our government.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Perhaps you could explain to federal government employees how they earned the right to become collateral damage in the "consequences" of this political showdown.

Why do people in favor of a government shutdown always see the government as some inanimate object? We're talking about people. No, they won't "die in the streets" (yes, whodey, that was aim ...[text shortened]... me temporary amount of time. Are you okay with imposing that uncertainty on other people?

"Perhaps you could explain to federal government employees how they earned the right to become collateral damage in the "consequences" of this political showdown."

They took the job. No job, private or public is guaranteed in perpetuity.

"Why do people in favor of a government shutdown always see the government as some inanimate object?"

Because it is. Its employees are paid by taxpayers, who also have hardships.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I keep hearing about how the Tea Party is pressuring the rest of the republicans in congress to support deep cuts the dems won't accept.

Can anybody tell me how the Tea Party has that much power? Their numbers are not large, right? Why would anybody let the Tea Party crowd pressure them? It sounds impossible to me.

Nearly all the Republican gains last election were Teaparty candidates. Already in this cycle, at least 4 incumbent Republican Senators are going to be challenged in primaries.

The Republican establishment is more afraid of losing seats to the Tea Party than to Democrats. That gives the Tea Party clout in the caucus.

Originally posted by badmoon
It is disgusting and immoral for the Republicans to make this yet one more disguised power grab by attaching EPA, NPR and Planned Parenthood to their stinking budget. These areas take so little of the budget yet they'd sink the country for these items.

Could it be that for political reasons the GOP wants to stop the government for an attempt to screw the ...[text shortened]... Anyone who isn't wealthy that supports this party disgusts and angers me with their stupidity.

"It is disgusting and immoral for the Republicans to make this yet one more disguised power grab by attaching EPA, NPR and Planned Parenthood to their stinking budget."

If these are such miniscule issues, then the Democrats are as much to blame as the Republicans for allowing them to sink the budget. By the way the country will not sink by a few weeks, or even months of shutdown. It will sink guaranteed with continuing deficit spending or 1.5 trillion $ per year.

Originally posted by whodey
1) So the Dems wanted GOP participation for the budget last fall? You mean like they did with Obamacare?

2) The Dems should have at least proposed a budget so that the voters could see both proposals with an informed ballot.

The bottom line is that the last time the government shut down under Clinton with the GOP in control, Clinton's poll numbers went ...[text shortened]... he deficit at best and both helped contribute to the overall finacial train wreck we see today.

The dynamics of 1995 and the present are entirely different. The deficit was $200B to maybe $300B, which almost disappeared with a growing ecomomy, and some spending restraint in a Republican Congress.

$1.5 T will not evaporate so easily, and people now have a better grasp of deficit and debt. If somehow we reached a balance budget or surplus, I don't think anyone would get away with arguing how the money could be spent, other than payng down the $13.5 T in debt.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A strange argument. Surely the government wants to pay as low wages as possible to public employees? At least in the Netherlands, where there is a strong collective bargaining culture, there is not much of a difference between private and public in this regard.

The dynamic is especially perverse if the party supported by the public sector unions is in power, and it usually is in big cities. The union is bargaining with itself, or its lacky.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
No. Here, politicians want to buy the votes and campaign contributions of the unions, so the people on both sides of the table sit and negotiate over how much of the taxpayer's money to give to each other. It's corrupt. Thus the big stink in Wisconsin over ending collective bargaining "rights."

Edit: Here's a page showing some of the results of colle ...[text shortened]... coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.[/i]

Ah, yes, if you have unions paying for election campaigns you can expect problems. But hey, "freedom of speech", right?

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
No. Here, politicians want to buy the votes and campaign contributions of the unions, so the people on both sides of the table sit and negotiate over how much of the taxpayer's money to give to each other. It's corrupt. Thus the big stink in Wisconsin over ending collective bargaining "rights."

Edit: Here's a page showing some of the results of colle ...[text shortened]... coverage that specifically paid for Viagra. Cost to taxpayers is $786,000 a year.[/i]

Glad you put "rights" in quotes, as collective bargaining is a legislatively granted privilege, not a right. It can, and in some cases needs to be taken away.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Ah, yes, if you have unions paying for election campaigns you can expect problems. But hey, "freedom of speech", right?

Freedom of speech doesn't eliminate conflict of interests. Certainly factions, or special interests will lobby for their point of view, but most don't directly effect the spending of taxpayer dollars, at least not on the scale of public sector unions.

When they do, those factions must be restrained.

Originally posted by normbenign
Freedom of speech doesn't eliminate conflict of interests. Certainly factions, or special interests will lobby for their point of view, but most don't directly effect the spending of taxpayer dollars, at least not on the scale of public sector unions.

When they do, those factions must be restrained.

I agree, so unions shouldn't be able to fund elections campaigns.

Originally posted by whodey
1) So the Dems wanted GOP participation for the budget last fall? You mean like they did with Obamacare?

2) The Dems should have at least proposed a budget so that the voters could see both proposals with an informed ballot.

The bottom line is that the last time the government shut down under Clinton with the GOP in control, Clinton's poll numbers went ...[text shortened]... he deficit at best and both helped contribute to the overall finacial train wreck we see today.

Whether Democrats wanted GOP support or not, they required it to pass any sort of long-term budget, period. So despite the rosy political picture they paint for themselves, Republicans can't reasonably blame democrats for not passing a bill sooner.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Perhaps you could explain to federal government employees how they earned the right to become collateral damage in the "consequences" of this political showdown."

They took the job. No job, private or public is guaranteed in perpetuity.

"Why do people in favor of a government shutdown always see the government as some inanimate object?"

Because it is. Its employees are paid by taxpayers, who also have hardships.

So you are comfortable with the government's furloughing hundreds of thousands of people when alternatives are available?

Originally posted by wittywonka
So you are comfortable with the government's furloughing hundreds of thousands of people when alternatives are available?

Right wingers typically have immense contempt for government workers and would prefer to have many of them lose their jobs.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Right wingers typically have immense contempt for government workers and would prefer to have many of them lose their jobs.

They also have contempt for the correct pronounciation of their own name.