Why are the WI unions falling all over themselves to make concessions?

[Skip_In_Boulder]

I keep seeing these stories on the net and in tweets that are going out about how the Wisconsin protesters are falling all over themselves in their willingness to make more concessions. If I am not mistaken haven't the unions already made some concessions within the last year.

I have a better idea, why don't we demand that Scott Walker rescind the 140 million dollars in tax cuts that he gave to his corporate buddies last month in an effort to balance the state budget. Or are we still buying into the B.S. that we can't do that because we will hurt the job creators? And just where are the jobs that these so-called creators have created.?

I just heard Leo Gerard saying on the Ed Schultz show that there are over a 100 million dollars in outstanding corporate taxes in Wisconsin that Scott Walker is going to forgive. How come we are not going after the money that these corporations owe? Isn't paying your taxes in this country still a crime or is that just a crime if they are not paid by the small people (Thanks Tony Hayward for letting us know how you corporatist really feel about us) but for corporations it's just no big deal? I guess in America we reward Corporatist for not paying their taxes and then give them some more tax benefits to boot. What is wrong here?

It's great that Americans are finally starting to stand up for their rights in Wisconsin and saying we are not going to take this anymore, but if you are going to turn around and give away the farm while corporate criminals go scott free on their obligations to society why even bother? It would be more time efficient to roll over now and just go home.

[Poboy]

1. This is why they/we will lose. In two years' time, it will be that much worse too.

They never 'comprimise' and we ALWAYS do. We will take it like the slaves we are, and much more pain is INEVITABLE.

[lsewpershad]

15. So frustrating

Isn't it?

[rubberducky]

2. I think that in makingconcessions with regard to wages, the union members are pointing out

that the governor is not interested in bargaining. His agenda seems to be totally wiping out the union. IMHO

[Shiver]

12. That is exactly it.

One of the right-wing talking points is that unions are greedy. We've told Walker that it's not about the money, that state union workers are willing to pay more. And they are. The protests are entirely about keeping the collective bargaining rights.

My mom is a state employee here, and believe me, she would love to not have to pay more into her pension and health insurance. She stands to lose $5000 a year if this goes through. But the more important thing is the collective bargaining rights. Without bargaining rights, there is no union.

[lonestarnot]

19. zactly!

[sabrina 1]

3. Good question, I have been wondering that also.

I find it appalling that ordinary workers are being asked to pay for the corruption of Wall St. which stole 15% of this country's wealth and no effort is being made to get it back.

But they have found a way to make the working class pay their gambling debts, and to see people accepting of that is pretty sad.

If you want to win, you have to start out with a 'no deal' attitude and then let them try to bargain you down. Instead the 'left' always caves hoping for some kind of recognition of how 'reasonable' they are, as if that has ever happened.

[Poboy]

9. hoping for some kind of recognition of how 'reasonable' they are, as if that has ever happened.

Exactly. As if! More hoping they will be 'reasonable'.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

[ewagner]

4. It was a good strategic move

If Walker gives in to the compromise, then they live to fight another day...if he doesn't, then the real intention of his plan is laid bare...win/win for the unions in the PR battle.

[sabrina 1]

13. If he doesn't back down, how will that be a 'win-win' for the unions?

They will have lost their bargaining positions, AND will have made concessions on their pay.

the Koch brothers will then move on to the next state.

Once the lose, the cannot fight another day for a very, very long time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. They have proven beyond a shadow

what is the true objective. These were strategic concessions... proving this guy is after collective rights.

[madmom]

6. To prove it's not about the money?

[FLAprogressive]

7. I think it's a good move....it makes them look good....says to people "We're willing to 'sacrifice'"

since that's what the idiots in this country want, according to John Boehner and President Obama.

[sabrina 1]

20. Looking good is not relevant, being right and being willing to stand

up for what is right, is the issue. Who will the 'look good' to when they fail? When Walker prevails?

And why should the working class, who had nothing to do with the theft of this country's wealth, pay to keep the corrupt gamblers in the lifestyle they have grown accustomed to?

How about taking a real stand, forcing investigations of what happened to over 15% of this wealth which has disappeared over the past few years and starting some prosecutions and some effort to return that money to the American people?

I don't pay other people's drug money debts, gambling debts etc. Why should we be asked to pay Wall St's gambling debts?

[BzaDem]

8. Because Walker is going to get basically everything he wants regardless?

He has majorities in both houses, and the Democrats can't stay in Illinois forever. Elections have consequences.

Hopefully there will be a recall election, but even with that it will take until the next statewide election or two to reverse the damage Walker is about to do to the state and its workers.

[Imajika]

27. Most people here don't seem to understand this...

The unions have no choice but give massive concessions. It is hoped that by conceding those we can at least stop the Republicans from destroying the right to collectively bargain and effectively destroy the unions.

Apparently people don't understand that the Republicans have the votes to pass whatever they want. With this public pressure and agreeing to the financial concessions, we MIGHT persuade the Republicans to drop the parts of the bill that outright destroy the unions.

Ultimately the fault lies with Wisconsin voters who cast ballots for all these teabagger Republicans. This state even voted out Russ Feingold, one of this nations best US Senators. Elections have consequences indeed, and attempts to destroy unions is one of them. It is even worse now as conservatives have been purging their ranks of moderate and reasonable Republicans. When Republicans have a majority in a state these days, expect awful things.

[Tansy_Gold]

10. This is why I believe all corporate income taxes should be abolished

Probably not what you expected to read from the fingertips of a confessed socialist, but it's true. I don't believe corporations should pay income taxes.

For the record, I also don't believe they should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns either. At all. Not one cent. Not to PACs, not to 527s, not to political parties. Period.

But getting back to the taxes issue.

Corporations will only pass the cost of paying taxes on to their customers. The objective of the corporation is to make a profit for the shareholders, and that profit objective will be met no matter what. If the tax rate is 50%, their prices will be raised to cover it. Yes, money will flow to the government -- that's a positive result -- but the hit to the consuming public will be far worse.

Eliminating corporate taxes will not necessarily lower the prices on the products -- which often are services and not products anyway -- but it will take away the incentive to bargain for lower tax rates and it will eliminate the rationale that lower corporate tax rates mean more jobs. We all know it's bunkum anyway, so let's put it into practice.

To counter the loss of whatever little bit of corporate tax is actually collected, the tax on unearned income needs to be raised to equal that of earned income. Dividends and interest and royalties and inheritances -- if it's not the result of work, it should still be taxed the same. This would also, I believe, negate some of the effect of offshoring some operations and avoiding federal taxes on corporate income, such as Disney moving part of their operations to the Cayman Islands and then paying that division huge licensing fees, etc., etc., etc. The net income as distributed to shareholders would be the income taxed. (Individuals who incorporate themselves for tax/liability purposes would be taxed as individuals, not exempt as corporations. Tax status is easily changed/created/deleted.)

Granting tax concessions to corporations is a dodge; Walker and Brewer in AZ and others are really giving money to individual human beings, not the paper entities called "corporations." We need to tax the individuals.



Tansy Gold

[alterfurz]

21. oh, Tansy, Tansy...

..."Tansy Gold" is surely some sort of computer-generated response algorithm. No real person could make so much sense so consistently!

[Tansy_Gold]

22. rofl

"Tansy Gold" is actually the name of a character in a book I started to write and never finished.



Thanks for the compliment!



TG

[Dappleganger]

24. I like how you think...

[Tansy_Gold]

25. Really?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x470257#470266

#12

[Dappleganger]

26. That one comment was quite harsh, yes.

But other than that there isn't much I've ever disagreed with you about, TG.

[Tansy_Gold]

29. thanks, DG

The other comment was MEANT to be harsh. I for one am sick and tired of being sick and tired (thank you, Fannie Lou Hamer, another great lady of the civil rights movement), and I'm really sick and tired of other people making promises and then hauling ass when things get tough.

You know, like the Dems when they had a super majority in congress for the better part of two years. . . . .


:hi:



TG. TT

[Dappleganger]

30. Yep, I get that part...

we definitely need to find our spine these days.

:hi:

[myrna minx]

11. It to call Walker on his lie - it's not about money, it's about union busting. n/t

[sabrina 1]

14. And what if he doesn't back down??

Seems like a pretty flimsy strategy to me. The point should be made that it was the Wall St. Corps that plunged the country into debt and that they are the ones who should pay that debt, NOT the working class. By agreeing to those concessions they are agreeing that the people have an obligation to pay Wall St's gambling debts. Where are the investigations to find out where the money went?

I doubt he'll back down and the unions will then have lost on two fronts. What will be their next move when he refuses to do so?

[Poboy]

16. Laying seige is the only effective strategy. Go home, they will lose.

Its as simple as that.

[sabrina 1]

18. Yes, exactly. There is no room for weakness now.

But I'm afraid there has already been a crack in the resolve and the Corps backed politicians will ram a truck right through it.

[HereSince1628]

17. It's easy, not even 3 D chess to understand this...

The players know what is going on.

Think about this...the budget was a cover story. A false 'economic Pearl Harbor' that was an attempt to create a shock that would open a window to bust the unions.

The cover story was very effectively separated and exposed the rawness of the budget busting when the union made its proposal to make concessions on the fiscal issues.

We know that Walker and the Fitzgerald brothers refused when the only thing left for them to object to was the very existance of state worker's unions. As an authoritarian with a dictatorial bent Walker cannot tolerate that he would need to negotiate anything, no matter how draconian.

The people in Wisconsin have no fight with the unions, the unions want no fight with the people. What everyone except the Kochs, Bradleys, Walker and the RedState Legislators wants is the budget to be resolved FAIRLY. With dignity and justice for all.

[Dappleganger]

23. They need to put pro-union politicians back into office to make things right.

Just "d" isn't enough.

[StarsInHerHair]

28. this is what I mentioned b4 & it dropped like a rock the whole "economic

policy" storyline is BS Why? You have 2 dogmatic ideas; low taxes on the wealthiest & multinational corps. yet "NO STRINGS ATTACHED TO LOW/NO TAXES". How DARE any lowling SUGGEST that the wealthiest are OBLIGATED to create MIDDLE CLASS JOBS HERE!!



SO WHICH IS IT?
"hurt the job creators?"
or privately destroy the nation?