Market Based Morality?

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:

And so what do you conclude as relates to the question of what corporations have to do with the "kerfluffle" there? Are corporations not among the taxpayers that Governor Walker complains cannot afford the collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions?

Yes, corporations pay taxes and are, therefore taxpayers. You said that corporations want to strictly control public employee pay rates. That isn't true.

I don't think I have said that, OC. But if you can show us that I have, then please do.

Yes it is. Others may believe you simply forgot. I know it's more of your dishonestly.

ziggy wrote:That could be. Does that make such an "obsession" irrelevant? I believe that corporations' are obsessed with having their bidders control virtually all of government- including the salaries, wages and other benefits of public employees.

Now try to weasle out of that, if you can.

In searching for that post, I found it as part of one that contained the following statement as well.

ziggy wrote:Aaron is asking me to accept his premise that corporations are not "taxpayers". If corporations are not taxpayers, why do corporations focus so much and spend so much on lobbying to have taxes not increase and/or be lower?

What is ironic is that after you posted this tripe, you claimed OC was putting words in his mouth and ask him not to do it.

That was not my premise. You stated that Walker was trying to "neuter" labor unions to empower corporations and I ask how. You still haven't answered, just as you haven't answered the question regarding which form of liberalism conservatives were trying to define liberasl by.

Some might think your running from so many legitimate questions makes you a coward.

You may count me among that crowd.

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:

And so what do you conclude as relates to the question of what corporations have to do with the "kerfluffle" there? Are corporations not among the taxpayers that Governor Walker complains cannot afford the collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions?

Yes, corporations pay taxes and are, therefore taxpayers. You said that corporations want to strictly control public employee pay rates. That isn't true.

I don't think I have said that, OC. But if you can show us that I have, then please do.

Yes it is. Others may believe you simply forgot. I know it's more of your dishonestly.

ziggy wrote:That could be. Does that make such an "obsession" irrelevant? I believe that corporations' are obsessed with having their bidders control virtually all of government- including the salaries, wages and other benefits of public employees.

Now try to weasle out of that, if you can.

Like the blind squirrell, you finally found an acorn, Aaron. Yep, I said it. So why would I try to weasel out of it?

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:

And so what do you conclude as relates to the question of what corporations have to do with the "kerfluffle" there? Are corporations not among the taxpayers that Governor Walker complains cannot afford the collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions?

Yes, corporations pay taxes and are, therefore taxpayers. You said that corporations want to strictly control public employee pay rates. That isn't true.

I don't think I have said that, OC. But if you can show us that I have, then please do.

I apologize, OC. You are correct. I had forgotten about typing that. That is what I said. But I don't think I can defend it as true. I got carried away. Me bad.

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

ohio county wrote:

And so what do you conclude as relates to the question of what corporations have to do with the "kerfluffle" there? Are corporations not among the taxpayers that Governor Walker complains cannot afford the collective bargaining agreements with public employee unions?

Yes, corporations pay taxes and are, therefore taxpayers. You said that corporations want to strictly control public employee pay rates. That isn't true.

I don't think I have said that, OC. But if you can show us that I have, then please do.

Yes it is. Others may believe you simply forgot. I know it's more of your dishonestly.

ziggy wrote:That could be. Does that make such an "obsession" irrelevant? I believe that corporations' are obsessed with having their bidders control virtually all of government- including the salaries, wages and other benefits of public employees.

Now try to weasle out of that, if you can.

Like the blind squirrell, you finally found an acorn, Aaron. Yep, I said it. So why would I try to weasel out of it?

Because that's how you roll. Look at all the other legitimate questions you're running scared from on this thread alone.

I would seriously love for you to address my first one in which brand of liberalism conservatives are redefining. The way I see it, my fathers Democrat which is FDR's democrat has been replaced by something that neither would be very happy with and I wonder how one of the new age liberals who have more in common with Karl Marx then FDR thinks of this.

ziggy wrote:

He'll have no choice because 14 Democrats, encouraged and emboldened by union fat cats, decided to make the decision for him.

Or is it because public agency managers negotiated labor contracts that, if we believe Walker, that the government and the taxpayers could not afford?

I saw Governor Walker on Meet the Press this morning. That liberal hack, Gregory, he pressed Walker hard on the issue of why Walker refuses to just accept the concessions already made and why Walker was "playing favorites" by not including police, fire etc in limiting collective bargaining rights to wages. What Walker said is that throughout this process unions and local governments have negotiated contracts that do not include contributions to health insurance and retirement benefits. Walker claims, and rightfully so it would appear, that as long as public employee unions have the ability to negotiate benefits negotiators will continue to sign unaffordable contracts. That is reality.

That liberal hack, Gregory, he pressed Walker hard on the issue of why Walker refuses to just accept the concessions already made and why Walker was "playing favorites" by not including police, fire etc in limiting collective bargaining rights to wages.

And what did Walker say about why police and firefighters' unions were not included?

I'm going to paraphrase here, not a precise quote:

"Thousands of public school teachers failed to report to work and closed public schools and it was an inconvenience. I would not risk having firemen call out and a home burn. I would not risk having police fail to report to work and crimes occur."

Stephanie wrote:I'm going to paraphrase here, not a precise quote:

"Thousands of public school teachers failed to report to work and closed public schools and it was an inconvenience. I would not risk having firemen call out and a home burn. I would not risk having police fail to report to work and crimes occur."

That is exactly why FDR, the man who signed the National Labor Relations (Wagnor) Act, opposed extending collective bargaining rights to public employeess. Roosevelt felt like keeping the government running and not subjecting it to the potential for being held hostage far outweighted public employees right to bargain and potentially strike if they didn't get what they wanted. It seems that at one point in time, liberals has some sense.


What happened?

ohio county wrote:But this: "...control virtually all of government- including the salaries, wages and other benefits of public employees..." bothers me immensely.

And this bothers me perhaps equally immensly:

ohio county wrote:I believe that your concern with corporations borders on obsession. Corporations are neither good nor evil.

It seems to me that to say that "corporations are neither good not evil" is comparable to saying that church charities, or labor unions, or 4-H Clubs, or Chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, or food pantries are neither good nor evil. I posit that all these associations are either as good or evil as their activities attest- no more, and no less. What am I missing?

Apparently a lot. None of the above associations possess any type of feelings, actions or any other qualities. They are no better or worse then the collective group of people who are associated with them. Honestly, I don't know what about that is so hard to understand.

I posit that all these associations are either as good or evil as their activities attest- no more, and no less. What am I missing?

Okay. While we're doing mea culpas, most of what Enron and Arthur Andersen did was evil. All Arthur Andersen had was their reputation and it was the gold standard and they peed it away. I had neighbors with twin sons. They were nearly ten years older than me and I didn't know them well. But I'll never forget that Ronnie and Donnie worked for Arthur Andersen and they were considered "fixed for life". That is, they were at the acme of accounting success and could not have done better. With one client, Arthur Andersen disappeared. In real terms the equivalent is that the earth opened and ate them. It couldn't happen. They're well beyond retirement age now and they were good boys. I hope they made out okay. I doubt it...

There are evil players who are associated with corporations. I've seen them up close and personal. I'm still not convinced that corporations are inherently evil.

What am I missing?

Balance. Judgment.

ohio county wrote:

What am I missing?

Balance. Judgment.

OK. I can agree with that. I long for more of both.

That doesn't make you a bad person. And who am I to say? I have to admit I must re-examine based on some of your suggestions...

ohio county wrote:There are evil players who are associated with corporations. I've seen them up close and personal. I'm still not convinced that corporations are inherently evil.

I agree. They are not inherently evil. And if you were to suggest that labor unions are not all inherently good, I would agree with that too. I don't think we are nearly as far apart as our respective words sometimes cause to appear.

Labor unions both private-sector and public-sector are deeply flawed. Yet private-sector unions have gained a great deal of concessions in safety and working conditions from which all workers have benefited. Police unions and firemen unions have gained for their members some safety concessions that we should all applaud.

We must never allow public-sector unions to leverage pensions that cause states to seek bankruptcy protection or require taxpayers to pay more for the services they receive without opening those services up to private providers.

A nice essay about Wisconsin.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/democrats-wage-populist-fight-against-their-allies

Union-funded lawmakers take money from taxpayers and give it the government unions, who kick some of it back to union-funded lawmakers. It's not too different from banks or defense contractors donating to politicians who bail them out or give them no-bid contracts.

I think I might drink to that- especially as it's just about that time of the evening anyway.